-------------- --------------- -------------- --------

"O you who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah, and be with the truthful." [Noble Quran 9:119]

"If you obeyed most of those on earth they would mislead you far from Allah's way." [Noble Quran 6:116]

Return to the QURAN only - the complete and final STAND-ALONE Divine Message which also contains the authentic sunnah of the beloved Prophet Muhammad (SAAW)


I bear witness that NONE is worthy of worship except ALLAH, He has NO partner nor partners, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the slave and Final Messenger of Allah.


Zainabs Lounge blog tracker

Friday, December 17, 2010

Culture of spiritual beard originated from Jewish/Christian tradition

In the Noble Quran there are NO connections between spirituality, beards and long robes. The Quran gives us NO reasons to presume that our Prophet Muhammad (S) wore a long untrimmed beard. When it instructs believers to follow the Prophet, it does not refer to the physical appearance of the Prophet. Instead, the reference is to the Prophet's exemplary character. Yet, every Muslim cleric considers it mandatory to carry that 'exclusive priestly look' which many of them find a lot more important than righteous conduct.

Have you ever thought how this notion infiltrated into Islam after the death of the Prophet? Well, it was picked up by the 9th and 10th century Hadith writers directly from the orthodox Jewish and Christian traditions with plenty of evidence.

Christian concepts
The Bible states "You will not deface the figure of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)
The exact nature of disfiguring the edges of the beard is debated by Christian "scholars." Some believe it forbade shaping the beard into a round or square shape that was popular in some ancient countries. The 'modern-orthodox' Christian perspective on beard is a bit more flexible saying that it is better for a man to have a beard than not to have one.

The following are a few (out of many) early Christian attitudes on men growing beards.

Sayings of St. Clement of Alxandria (c.195, E), 2.271, 2.275 and 2.276:
"The hair of the chin showed him to be a man."

"How womanly it is for one who is a man to comb himself and shave himself with a razor, for the sake of fine effect, and to arrange his hair at the mirror, shave his cheeks, pluck hairs out of them, and smooth them!…For God wished women to be smooth and to rejoice in their locks alone growing spontaneously, as a horse in his mane. But He adorned man like the lions, with a beard, and endowed him as an attribute of manhood, with a hairy chest--a sign of strength and rule."

"This, then, is the mark of the man, the beard. By this, he is seen to be a man. It is older than Eve. It is the token of the superior nature….It is therefore unholy to desecrate the symbol of manhood, hairiness.”

Saying of St. Cyprian 5.553 (Leviticus 19:27) "The beard must not be plucked. You will not deface the figure of your beard'."

Words of Apostolic Constitutions - 4th century collection of books on Christian discipline:
"Men may not destroy the hair of their beards and unnaturally change the form of a man. For the Law says, “You will not deface your beards.” For God the Creator has made this decent for women, but has determined that it is unsuitable for men." Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c.390, E) 7.392. (1)

Jewish concepts
According to the orthodox Jewish culture, a Jewish man must grow a beard and payot (long hair at the temples). Throughout history the Jews have honored the beard as a mark of manhood. To this day, the orthodox Jews have little respect for clean-shaven men. During periods of mourning, the ancient Jews allowed their beards to go untrimmed. The practice was dervied from the notion of avoiding doing anything which could possibly result in a transgression of God’s commandments to the Jews. In that respect, religious Jews are precluded from cutting any hair growing around the jawbone.

Hadith concepts (unauthentic)
Rasulullah (SallAllâhu Alayhi Wasallam) said "Trim closely the moustache and grow the beard." - Reported by Abu Hurairah (R.A.) in Muslim, Hadith no. 501

Rasulullah (SallAllâhu Alayhi Wasallam) said: "Anyone who shaves has no claim to the mercy of Allâh" - Reported by Ibn Abbas (R.A.) in Tibrabi

Narrated ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "Cut the moustaches short and leave the beard" (Sahih al Bukhari)

Abu Hurayrah " reported that the ruler of Yemen, appointed by the Persian emperor Kisra, sent two envoys to the Messenger !. When they came into his presence, he noticed that they had shaved their beards and let their moustaches grow big. Hating their ugly appearance, he turned his face away and said, “Woe be to you, who told you to do so?” (Fiqh us-Sirah by al-Ghazali p. 359)]

The resemblance between the ideology of the false Hadith writers and that of the Jews and Christians is striking. One would literally need to be a retard not to observe it.

The Noble Quran
In stark contrast to all of the above, the Glorious Quran NEVER mentions a single word about the significance of beard in relation to one's Faith, ethics and conduct. In fact, God Almighty has firmly told the Muslims not to follow the practices of the Jews and Christians, implying only to adhere to the laws of the Quran.

"And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah's guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper." Noble Quran, Surah 2:120

"A party of the followers of the Book desire that they should lead you astray, and they lead not astray but themselves, and they do not perceive." Noble Quran, Surah 3:69

But despite the warnings in the Quran, our Muslim "scholars" / clerics to their own great risk have decided to accept and practice the teachings of the altered Jewish and Christian Bibles.

There's a verse in the Quran that describes a conversation between Moses and his brother, Aaron (peace be on them), after Moses returned to his people with the Ten Commandments and saw that they had reverted to idolatry which made him furious. The verse quotes Aaron as saying: "O son of my mother! Clutch not my beard nor my head!" (20:94). The 'ulemas' and Hadith adherents attempt to use this verse as a 'proof' that it is necessary for all prophets and men to grow beards. It doesn't require much intelligence to perceive that this concept is totally incorrect. The Quran does not, anywhere, associate Aaron's beard with his spirituality. Aaron's beard was either in keeping with the common social culture of that era or perhaps his personal choice. To think otherwise would be nothing beyond a conjecture or a blind guess only for the purpose of supporting the Hadith narrations.

We know for a fact that during the medieval era and earlier, it was a common social culture for men to grow beards .. more common than it is today. Even polytheists and atheists had beards. Very likely, Abu Lahab had a beard too. In fact, polytheist priests among Hindus and all Sikhs grow long beards uptil now.

As we have seen, there are numerous Ahadith stating the importance of beard in all sorts of strange ways. Some go to the extent of mentioning that men who don't grow beards will go to Hell. Different sects and scholars have varying opinions on growing, shortening and shaving the beards. The Shafis, Malikis, Hanafis and Hanibalis, all uphold their own detailed brands of nonsense. According to some beard is "obligatory" and shaving it is "haram." According to others it is "sunnah." Yet others say it is "mustahab" (preferred). The first opinion that says it is "obligatory" is the most popular one.

There are two points to remember.

(1) First, we have found absolutely no evidence from any other source except the highly controversial Hadith plagiarised from the altered Old and New Testaments that the Prophet Muhammad (S) ever even had a beard, let alone confirming its length. The Quran mentions NOTHING about the Prophet having a beard and neither does it instruct anyone to grow a beard in connection with piety. This notion among the Hadith traditionalists and story tellers about the Prophet having a long beard (which has even acquired the title of "Sunnah beard") is a similar fantasy as the illusionary image of Jesus (son of Virgin Mary) created by Westerners having blue eyes, blond hair and white skin.

(2) Secondly, even if the Prophet (S) did wear a beard, that would surely be his personal choice which is fine. But again, the Quran does not instruct anyone to immitate the Prophet's outward appearance. The Quran commands only to copy the Prophet's character - his compassion, kindness, sense of justice, perseverence (taqwa), humility etc. It's awfully unfortunate that majority of the Muslims today couldn't be bothered to acquire these great attributes of the Prophet (S) and instead they only waste time on unnecessary issues like beard, miswak, khimar and other irrelevant aspects invented by the imams.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Does the Quran refer to follow the man-written Hadith?

Is the Quranic commandment on obeying the Prophet (S), a reference to accepting the unconfirmed narrations attributed to him at random by so-called companions?

Here are some verses that are perpetually taken as a standard excuse for adhering to the extra-Quranic literature commonly known as "Hadith."

"And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it)." 59:7

"Say, (O Muhammad, to mankind): If ye love Allah, follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." 3:31

"Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much." 33:21

First off, let's clear up the misunderstanding with regard to Verse 59:7. When Allah tells the people to take whatever the Prophet gives them and abstain from whatever he forbids them, the reference is NOT to the writings of the future Persian imams coming to Arabia from Bokhara and nearby regions. The inaccuracy of such an opinion by misinterpreting this verse out of context is so glaring that it almost sounds like a joke! The truth is, Verse 59:7 is a portion of a much larger Verse of Surah Al-Hashr. The theme of the entire Verse is the distribution of spoils of war which is intended for the needy and not for greedy. God Almighty tells the recipients of the spoils to accept humbly whatever is given to them as their share by the Messenger and abstain from whatever is not given to them.

Concerning Verses 3:31 and 33:21, these have NO connections with future man-written Hadiths either, and nor do these verses command us to follow those Hadiths. It must be understood that all Divine commandments in the Quran to obey the Prophet (S) are directed to the contemporaries of the Prophet, those who lived during the lifetime of the Prophet (S). So, does this mean that Allah's guidance was only for them? Not at all. Allah's guidance through the Prophet (S) was for entire humanity and for all times to come. We only need to logically analyse this point to understand the reality.

The era of the Prophet (S) was the beginning of Islam. Also, those who lived during the lifetime of the Prophet could see and meet him in person for advise and guidelines on Quranic dictates.

Most of those pagans and bedouins of this period who were fresh converts to Islam weren't educated. They could barely read or write and were dependent on the practical demonstrations by the Prophet for right spiritual and moral conduct. Thus, Allah tells them that ".. in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example .."

The next very important aspect is that the Quran was still in the process of being revealed during that era. The already revealed portions were written and carefully preserved but hadn't yet been compiled and circulated in the form of a Book as we find it at present. Thus, the new Muslims of Medinah could not have easy recourse to the Qruan as we have today. They could acquire authentic Quranic instructions only from the Prophet, directly and personally. Having said this, the Prophet's practical example for his contemporaries to follow was based strictly on the Quran and NOT on any other source. Needless to say, the man-written books of Bukhari etc. had not even emerged at that time. These unfounded narrations and compilations with the title of "Hadith" began their widespread destruction more than 150 years after the passing away of the Prophet (S).

The Prophet (S) passed away approximately 10 years after living in Medinah. By that time the Prophet's mission was successfully finished and the revelations of the Glorious Quran were completed. The compilation of the Divine Words had begun, and was officially completed under the supervision of the 2nd and 3rd righteous Caliphs approximately two decades after the Prophet's death.

Coming to our present situation, the Prophet (S) is no longer amongst us. Though his absense is hurtful and traumatizing beyond words, unfortunately we cannot bring him back. Therefore we cannot get the Quranic instructions from the Prophet in person as did his contemporaries. However, fortunately for us, that's not a problem at all. As ordained by Allah, The Almighty, the very source of the Prophet's instructions is very much available, intact, compiled and fully original. The Glorious Quran is in the midst of us, to be studied, understood and followed. Millions of copies have been published of the original in Arabic, and this publication will be a continuous process, God Willing. The original has also been translated into dozens of different languages, the publications of which will be a permanent process too.

Simply and logically put, if we want to follow the Prophet (S) we need to seek information from the Quran, from which the Prophet himself sought guidance and conveyed to his people during his lifetime. In the absense of the Prophet (S), the only method by which we can adhere to the Truth is to tightly grasp the Final Divine Message without any distractions from sectarian tales, slanderous gossips and impertinent narrations by controversial personalities.

Following the Quran is automatically an indication of following the Prophet, while following the man-written Hadith (or any other source) is no guarantee for following the Quran nor the Prophet.

God Almighty has made it ample clear in His Final Message that obedience to the Prophet (S) is subject to the Prophet's obedience to the Quran. Hence, He says in Surah Al-Haqqah (The Reality): "And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us, We assuredly had taken him by the right hand And then severed his life-artery, And not one of you could have held Us off from him." 69:44-47

The only true Sunnah can be obtained from no other source except the Glorious Quran. The man-written stories dubbed as "Hadiths" (which are basically the copy-cat versions of the altered Old and New Testaments), are only the "sunnah" of the persons who have narrated or written them. They have no relevance in the life of a true believer, just as they had no relevance in the life of the Prophet (S). But if we fail to be firm and allow ourselves to get carried away by the superficial rhetorics of other humans, we only end up hurting ourselves on the Day of Judgment. This was precisely the blunder made by the People of the Book. Let's not repeat history. If we refuse to deviate and remain stedfast, focused only on the Final Message, the "Criterion" (25:1), our soul will thank our mind for its wisdom on the Day of Judgment. That's definite.

Last but not least, the Noble Quran is a STANDALONE Book. It's completed and perfected, and independent of all human writings. It does NOT require any other piece of literature for its explanation. This has been confirmed by the Divine Power Himself in one of the last revelations of this Great Book. It was revealed to the beloved Final Messenger only weeks before his death.

"This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam. " 5:3

Friday, November 26, 2010

Did the Prophet (S) fast on the 10th of Muharram?

The practice of fasting on 10th Muharram (Ashura) in the Sunni culture has nothing to do with the tragic results of the battle of Karbala. Instead, it involves a very different story, constructed years after the Prophet's (S) death with a specific motive. The Prophet (S) never observed fast on the 10th of Muharram. It started through one of the unauthentic ahadith written and compiled by Mr. Imam al-Bukhari that says:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) entered Medina in the first year of Hijra and noticed the Jews fasting. He asked one of his companions: “Why are the Jews fasting?”. His companion replied: “The Jews are remembering when Prophet Moses (pbuh) and the children of Israel were saved from the Pharaoh”. The prophet said: “I have a greater right on Moses than what they do. Therefore, my people will fast on Ashura in the same way they are fasting on Ashura”. One of the companions exclaimed: “O Messenger of Allah, but we are going to be copying the Jews” and the prophet then replied: “You are right, from now on we will fast on the 9th and 10th”. (Al-Bukhari, hadith 1865)

The above hadith claims that the Jews observed this month as sacred and also observed fast during the 10th of Muharram as it coincided with their religious event of Passover. Further it claims that when the Prophet heard of the Jews fasting on 10th Muharram (the Jews were supposed to have said that Moses observed fast on 10th Muharram), the Prophet allegedly also decided to fast.

A careful analysis of historical data with all its facts exposes the manipulation of Bukhari Hadith No.1865 that's responsible for starting the culture of fasting on 10th Muharram. The Jews didn't fast on the 10th of Muharram as Passover never coincided with Muharram. The Jews had their own calendar. They had no reason to fast on the 10th of Muharram - unless it could be proven that this date coincided with some Jewish day of fast during the Medinah period in Islamic history. But there's no evidence of that either.

In accordance with historical findings, during the very ancient days, the Jewish month of Tishri coincided with Muharram once upon a time. But history bluntly indicates that the Arab and Jewish calenders lost their synchronization and parity long before the Prophet (S) migrated to Medinah in 622 CE. The parity was lost before the advent of Islam as the pagan Arabs did not follow any mathematical calculation in their intercalation. That's the reason why Muharram in the second year of Hijrah began on July 5, 623 C.E. (Al-Munjid, 21st ed.), much before the Jewish month of Tishri I (which always coincides with September-October). It was for this reason that neither the Jews nor the Arabs ever discussed anything about the synchronization of their calenders during the Prophet's entire era in Medinah. The day of Ashura had NO significance for the Jews.

Furthermore, according to the Jewish Bible, the month in which the Israelites were freed from the tyranny of Pharaoh was Abib (in Hebrew, which is the same as Rajab in Arabic). The Jewish Bible (Torah) says: "Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover unto the Lord thy God: for in the month of Abib the Lord thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night." (Deut., 16:1). As the Jewish Bible mentions that Passover took place in the month of Abib (or Rajab), how could the Jews transfer that event from Rajab to Muharram in open defiance to their religious scripture? The narrator of this forged hadith obviously overlooked this point. This narrator only knew that once upon a time Muharram coincided with the Jewish month, Tishri, but he was totally unaware of contemporary rules of Jewish religion and culture.

Most importantly, something for Sunni Muslims to reflect upon which they unfortunately ignore for the purpose of defending the contents of this very unauthentic Hadith.

The Prophet (S) was sent by Allah Almighty with a perfected Religion to abrogate all previous religions that were changed and corrupted by the selfish desires of the human mind. Thus, would the Prophet (S) ever decide or agree to imitate the custom of the Jews and order people to fast on that day when the Noble Quran commands to fast ONLY in the month of Ramadan? He would NEVER do that for certain.

Syed Saeed Rizvi who has widely researched this issue is of the view that this story was constructed by the Ommayad rulers in collaboration with their political cronies, after the martyrdom of Imam Hussain. It was done for the purpose of portraying the day of Ashura (10th Muharram) as a day of rejoicing to distract the society from the events of the incident in Karbala. Regardless of the long-standing Shiia-Sunni wranglings, it isn't hard to discern that Rizvi's well studied views make plenty of sense. It's a well-known fact that Abu Huraira, who barely knew the Prophet (S), and yet has narrated more hadiths than anyone else, was a close friend of Muawia bin Abu Sufyan, the first Ommayad caliph. It's also an open secret that Abu Huraira constructed tons of forged narrations in the Prophet's name from Muwaia's luxurious palace which he visited regularly. There were others like him too. Their loyalty toward Faith was questionable. Their obvious goal was personal benefit by befriending powerful and influential persons.

The above quoted Hadith on fasting on 10th Muharram is of the same genre as various other forged narrations by the camp followers of the Ommayads which say that it was on the 10th of Muharram that Noah's ark rested on Mount Arafat, the fire became cool for Abraham, and Jesus ascended to the heaven. In the same category came the traditions exhorting the Muslims to treat Ashura as a festive and joyous occasion.

Apart from the Hadith written by Imam Bukhari, and a few other copy-cat versions penned by Muslim bin Hajaj and Imam Tirmizi, there is absolutely no mention (let alone any evidence) in Islamic history that the Prophet (S) nor anyone else observed fast on 10th Muharram.

Briefly and simply put, this hadith is politically motivated. The Jews didn't fast on the 10th of Muharram and the Prophet (S) never observed fast on this day either. The month of Muharram and particularly the 10th of Muharram became significant in history after the martyrdom of Imam Hussain, the grandson of the Prophet, which happened in the year 61 AH (or 680 CE), years after the passing away of the Prophet (S). The Ommayad rulers were eager to downplay the relevance of 10th Muharram as Imam Hussain's martyrdom happened during the period of the second Ommayad ruler, Yazid bin Muawia.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Myth of "Satanic Verses"

The mischief of Rushdi originated from the lies of al-Tabari

The ones who have benefitted most from the misinterpretations of the Quran based on utterly ridiculous and untruthful Ahadith narratives have been the impious. The book of Salman Rushdi is a clear example.

The untruthful and slanderous "Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdi gets its title from nowhere else but the fat bundle of lies fostered by the institution of Hadith.

According to a viciously false Hadith narrative written by Abu Jafar al-Tabari, it is alleged that one day, as the Prophet (S) was reciting the Quran (Surah An-Najam), Satan interrupted and caused him to compromise with the idolaters. The first of the two sources of this contrived Hadith is a book written by Tabari titled "Tarikh al-Tabari" and the second source is another book filled with cooked up stories called "Kitab Tabaqat Al-Kubra" also written by a 9th century so-called 'scholar & biographer' named Ibn Sa'd al- Baghdadi.

For once our modern Muslim scholars showed an element of wisdom. They analysed and rejected this alleged incident of the so-called "Satanic verses" as completely false and unauthentic. These books of Tabari and Ibn Sa'd have not been given any importance and neither have they been translated into English from Arabic. But the wisdom of our scholars and ulemas takes a tumble for not trashing the Arabic version of Tabari's garbage. Taking advantage of their negligence, Islamophobic orientalists like Salman Rushdi and G.R. Hawting consulted the fictions of Tabari and Ibn Saad and got them translated through their own sources for inclusion in their works.

Jafar al-Tabari (born 923 CE) was an early Persian historian and a so-called exegete of the Quran claiming to know fluent Arabic. But his insults and falsehoods against the Prophet (S) were stark evidences that he was a 'Muslim' only by title while still very much a Zorastrian at heart. This is nothing surprising as it was the same with with all imams who appeared from the 9th century onward, particularly the Persian imams of that era. Like all Hadith writers/compilers of his time, offensive fairy tales of Tabari have provided plenty of ammunition to mean and manipulative orientalists for attacking the Glorious Quran and the Prophet (S). According to many analysts it's also very doubtful if Tabari knew proper Arabic, let alone being an expert in the Arabic language to be called an exegetist of the Quran. All Persian imams of that era - Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Nasai etc. - knew only makeshift Arabic in which they compiled their Hadith narrations, the standard of which is internationally recognized as the poorest quality of Arabic.

This myth of the "Satanic verses" is completely and clearly refuted by the contents of Surah An-Najm from where Tabari deliberately constructed his false account in the name of "tafsir" and which was later exploited by crooks like Rushdi.

Before analysing and exposing Tabari's work which eventually earned Rushdi the title of 'knighhood' in the U.K., let me quote the entire 62 verses of Surah An-Najm, the 53rd Chapter of the Glorious Quran. Please read it carefully for reference.


1. By the Star when it setteth,

2. Your comrade erreth not, nor is deceived;

3. Nor doth he speak of (his own) desire.

4. It is naught save an inspiration that is inspired,

5. Which one of mighty powers hath taught him,

6. One vigorous; and he grew clear to view

7. When he was on the uppermost horizon.

8. Then he drew nigh and came down

9. Till he was (distant) two bows' length or even nearer,

10. And He revealed unto His slave that which He revealed.

11. The heart lied not (in seeing) what it saw.

12. Will ye then dispute with him concerning what he seeth ?

13. And verily he saw him yet another time

14. By the lote-tree of the utmost boundary,

15. Nigh unto which is the Garden of Abode.

16. When that which shroudeth did enshroud the lote-tree,

17. The eye turned not aside nor yet was overbold.

18. Verily he saw one of the greater revelations of his Lord.

19. Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-'Uzza

20. And Manat, the third, the other ?

21. Are yours the males and His the females ?

22. That indeed were an unfair division!

23. They are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers, for which Allah hath revealed no warrant. They follow but a guess and that which (they) themselves desire. And now the guidance from their Lord hath come unto them.

24. Or shall man have what he coveteth ?

25. But unto Allah belongeth the after (life), and the former.

26. And how many angels are in the heavens whose intercession availeth naught save after Allah giveth leave to whom He chooseth and accepteth.

27. Lo! it is those who disbelieve in the Hereafter who name the angels with the names of females.

28. And they have no knowledge thereof. They follow but a guess, and lo! a guess can never take the place of the truth.

29. Then withdraw (O Muhammad) from him who fleeth from Our remembrance and desireth but the life of the world.

30. Such is their sum of knowledge. Lo! thy Lord is Best Aware of him who strayeth, and He is Best Aware of him whom goeth right.

31. And unto Allah belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth, that He may reward those who do evil with that which they have done, and reward those who do good with goodness.

32. Those who avoid enormities of sin and abominations, save the unwilled offences - (for them) lo! thy Lord is of vast mercy. He is Best Aware of you (from the time) when He created you from the earth, and when ye were hidden in the bellies of your mothers. Therefor ascribe not purity unto yourselves. He is Best Aware of him who wardeth off (evil).

33. Didst thou (O Muhammad) observe him who turned away,

34. And gave a little, then was grudging ?

35. Hath he knowledge of the Unseen so that he seeth ?

36. Or hath he not had news of what is in the books of Moses

37. And Abraham who paid his debt:

38. That no laden one shall bear another's load,

39. And that man hath only that for which he maketh effort,

40. And that his effort will be seen.

41. And afterward he will be repaid for it with fullest payment;

42. And that thy Lord, He is the goal;

43. And that He it is who maketh laugh, and maketh weep,

44. And that He it is Who giveth death and giveth life;

45. And that He createth the two spouses, the male and the female,

46. From a drop (of seed) when it is poured forth;

47. And that He hath ordained the second bringing forth;

48. And that He it is Who enricheth and contenteth;

49. And that He it is Who is the Lord of Sirius;

50. And that He destroyed the former (tribe of) A'ad,

51. And (the tribe of) Thamud He spared not;

52. And the folk of Noah aforetime, Lo! they were more unjust and more rebellious;

53. And Al-Mu'tafikah He destroyed

54. So that there covered them that which did cover.

55. Concerning which then, of the bounties of thy Lord, canst thou dispute ?

56. This is a warner of the warners of old.

57. The threatened Hour is nigh.

58. None beside Allah can disclose it.

59. Marvel ye then at this statement,

60. And laugh and not weep,

61. While ye amuse yourselves ?

62. Rather prostrate yourselves before Allah and serve Him.

I am sure that everyone in their right mind can perceive, understand and enjoy the beautiful rhythm and perfect chain of expressions in the Divine Words of Surah An-Najm from start to finish.

Al-Tabari began constructing his false story by picking Verses 19 and 20 of Surah An-Najm, claiming that the names of idols stated in these two Verses were the result of Satan's interruption when the Prophet (S) was reciting this Revelation, and the Prophet (S) let slip into his recitation the names of these idols as whispered by Satan.

Please read the following analysis carefully. It will prove that Tabari was not just a compulsive liar but also a very stupid one.

The names of idols mentioned in the 19th and 20th verses of Surah An-Najm were the three main idols of the pagan Arabs whom they worshipped and called them "the daughters of Allah." It's absolutely clear in this Surah that Allah mentions those names to chastise and rebuke the pagans for their extreme ignorance and obstinacy to recognize this falsehood even after receiving Allah's guidance. Anyone with a shred of common sense who has read Surah An-Najm can clearly perceive that its entire set of 62 verses are intact, serially linked and self-explanatory.

It's interesting to note that the glaring falsehood of Tabari's story is so obvious that even all Hadith scholars, who are generally quite comfortable with lies, have rejected the isnad (chain of narrators) of Tabari's work as "completely false." In fact, the isnad, as quoted below from Ibn Saad's al-Tabaqat al-Kubra sounds like a joke!

It starts with a person called Muhammad ibn Umar who was born more than 100 years after the death of the Prophet (pbuh) and had died in 207 AH. The isnad says: "Muhammad ibn Umar narrated to us: Yunus ibn Muhammad ibn Fadala al-Zafari narrated to me: from his father who said: from Kathir ibn Zayd: from al-Muttalib ibn AbdAllah ibn Hantab."

And here's what other medieval Hadith authors said of Muhammad Ibn Umar, the narrator of Tabari's Hadith.

Muhammad ibn Umar al-Waqidi [d.207], Ahmad ibn Hanbal said of him. "He is a liar." Al-Bukhari and Abu Hatim Al-Razi said: "Discarded." Ibn Adi said: "His narrations are not retained, and their bane comes from him." Ibn Al-Madini said: "He forgets hadiths." Al-Dhahabi said: "Consensus has settled over his debility." [Mizan-al-tidal 3:662-666 # 7993]

The illuminating analysis by Abbas Bahmanpour
Apart from the flaws of bad isnads, as Abbas Bahmanpour states: "The very composition of Surah An-Najam belies the story and makes it a poor selection for the insertion of satanic verses. In the beginning of Surah An-Najam (Verses 1 to 5), Allah rejects any possibilities that the Prophet (pbuh) would ever speak out of his desire or could be tricked." The following are the first 5 verses of Surah An-Najam, re-quoted for immediate reference, that flatly refute the lie of Tabari and the narrators of the false isnads.

1. "By the Star when it setteth,
2. Your comrade erreth not, nor is deceived;
3. Nor doth he speak of (his own) desire.
4. It is naught save an inspiration that is inspired, 5. Which one of mighty powers hath taught him,"
(53:1-5) Surah An-Najam

Abbas Bahmanpour further explains that not only this, but subsequent to Verses 19 and 20 of Surah An-Najam which Tabari falsely claimed as "satanic verses," come the following three Ayahs of Surah An-Najam:

21. "Are yours the males and His the females ?
22. That indeed were an unfair division!
23. They are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers, for which Allah hath revealed no warrant. They follow but a guess and that which (they) themselves desire. And now the guidance from their Lord hath come unto them." (53:21-23) Surah An-Najam

These three verses are a clear admonishment to the idol worshippers and their practices, and is a complete contradiction of the claims of Tabari and the narrators regarding 'Satanic verses.'

Al-Tabari's secret motive behind his myth
The reason why Tabari constructed this lie was to promote another lie floating within the circle of the imams. To reconcile their contradictory writings with the contents of the Quran, the Hadith writers in the 9th century came up another myth claiming that certain verses of the Quran had been "abrogated" in order to adjust their falsehoods within Islam. The fact is that none of the Quranic verses were ever "abrogated" and Verse 2:106 proves it.

"Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things ?" 2:106 Surah Al-Baqrah

This verse became an obstacle for Tabari in propagating the false notion of "abrogation of verses." Thus, he scribbled his story because he needed to plant some "evidence" for the myth of abrogation. This game played by Tabari has been confirmed by many truth-seeking researchers and historians who have also asserted that Tabari's story has been fabricated further by several Muslims themselves who were looking to justify the "abrogation" issue.

In plain terms, Rushdi's "Satanic Verses" originate from the unauthentic 'Satanic Hadith' by al-Tabari - a liar borrowing from a liar.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

"Amr bil Ma'ruf wa Nahy an al Munkar" (امر بالمعروف و نهى عن المنكر)

"Establish worship and enjoin kindness and forbid iniquity, and persevere whatever may befall thee. Lo! that is of the steadfast heart of things." 31:17 (Glorious Quran)

The expression 'amr bi al-ma'ruf wa-nahy an al-munkar' is a very significant one. It is related to Jihad, that is, doing one's utmost to realize a goal. Jihad is not necessarily war fought on the battlefield for which the specific Arabic and Quranic term is 'qital.' Jihad has a very wide connotation and refers to striving for the cause of Allah Almighty to promote goodness and eradicate evil. A mujahid is a person who carries out Jihad or works hard for the cause of promoting the principles of the Glorious Quran.

Thus, Amr bil ma‘ruf wa nahy an al-munkar which means enjoining good and forbidding evil, is a Jihad related principle. It seeks to intellectually convey the benefits of Islam to the people and to inform them of the importance of abandoning evil practices. The Quran calls Muslims the model community which requires to convey the Prophet’s message to entire humanity and to live the Quran, just as the Prophet did.

"Amr bil Ma'ruf wa Nahy an al Munkar" is an essential Islamic duty, collectively accepted by all Muslims. The difference is in the interpretation of it. Some consider that it is sufficient to fulfil the duty by the "heart and tongue," which means one should support al-ma'ruf and oppose al-munkar in his heart and use his tongue to speak out for al-ma'ruf and against al-munkar. But there are some who justify taking up arms (if necessary) for the sake of fulfilling this duty.

As per the wishes of the Ummayad rulers, most Hadith narrators (who lived during their era) constructed Ahadith to suit their political interests. They considered it sufficient to fulfil the duty of al-Amr wa al-nahy by the heart and tongue. The Ummayads had a deeply autocratic trend and were not enthusiastic about peoples' opinion. Because of their many political blunders, the they were in need of the theory of Predestination, that man is not responsible for his actions because all human actions proceed from God. But as per the contents of the Noble Quran confirmed by Allah Almighty, the Ummayad view of predestination is not quite correct. Though Allah is All-Powerful and All-Knowing and can do anything at anytime, He has generally chosen to pre-ordain human fate in accordance with human action. Allah Almighty has plainly stated in the Noble Quran that He has given humankind a conscience and it's upto them whether they make it grow or leave it stunted. Allah has also said in the Quran that He does not change the condition of people until they first change that which is in their hearts.

"And the heaven and Him Who built it,
And the earth and Him Who spread it,
And a soul and Him Who perfected it
And inspired it (with conscience of) what is wrong for it and (what is) right for it.
He is indeed successful who causeth it to grow,
And he is indeed a failure who stunteth it." (91:5-10) Glorious Quran

"Lo! Allah changeth not the condition of a folk until they (first) change that which is in their hearts;" (13:11) Glorious Quran

There are many more similar verses that express the concept of human ability to initiate actions and thus reap its rewards or consequences.

The Islamic school of Mu'tazilah that originated in Basra and Baghdad between the 8th and 10th centuries bitterly opposed the Ummayad approach encouraging docility among the people. The Mu'tazilah school accepted the conditions for al-'amr wa-nahy by not limiting it to the heart and tongue. They maintained that if unlawful practices become widespread or if the state is oppressive and unjust, it is obligatory for Muslims to rise in armed revolt to confront corruption. I would think, this view is a lot more compatible with the Noble Quran than the theory of the Ummayad rulers. The Prophet (SAAW) and his early companions strongly upheld the doctrine of Sovereignty of Allah and the freedom of human will, that humankind would be judged by their actions. The early Islamic Empire was built precisely on this principle.

It's clear to perceive the difference of interpretation of Amr bil-ma'ruf wa-nahy 'an al-munkar between the Mu'tazilah and the ahl-Hadith. The Hadith ideology has a much more complacent approach toward governmental corruption in favor of which many Hadiths had been scribbled condemning peoples' revolt as Haram for the purpose of appeasing the rulers. The repercussions of this mentality can be found uptil the present in many Muslim countries, mostly in the predominantly Sunni circles.

Friday, October 1, 2010

Crescent moon is NOT a religious Islamic symbol

One often sees the image of a fine crescent moon above the minaret of a mosque in pictures.  This has caused some very absurd and ignorant misinterpretations by non-Muslims claiming that Muslims "worship the moon." 

The crescent moon has NO religious significance whatsoever for Muslims.   Muslims follow the lunar calendar.  As stated in the Glorious Quran, the importance of the moon is only for calculating the number of days in every month.   Similarly the different positions of the sun help to assert the time.

"He it is Who appointed the sun a splendour and the moon a light, and measured for her stages, that ye might know the number of the years, and the reckoning. Allah created not (all) that save in truth. He detaileth the revelations for people who have knowledge."  (10:5)

"They ask thee concerning the New Moons. Say: They are but signs to mark fixed periods of time in (the affairs of) men, and for Pilgrimage...."  (2:189)

At the dawn of Islam there were no printed calendars, watches or clocks.   The dates were often counted by the 'year of elephant,' the months were determined by observing the moon and the time was calculated by the movement of the sun.  The concept of hours and minutes developed some 500 years later.   In modern times the practical or non-religious reason for occasionally showing the crescent moon is to make known that Muslims use the lunar calendar to calculate the months, unlike the Christians, who use the solar calendar.

During the era of Prophet Muhammad (SAAW) and the early Muslim communities, there was no concept of the crescent even though the Muslims used the lunar calendar.   Islamic armies and caravans flew simple solid-colored flags (generally black, green, or white) for identification purposes.  In later generations, the Muslim leaders continued to use a simple black, white, or green flag with no markings, writings, nor symbols for the same purpose of identification.

The crescent was a non-religious symbol of the Ottoman Empire, not of Islam.  It was the Turkish Ottoman Empire that began using the crescent as a symbol of their dynasty.

Osman Ghazi, the founder of the Ottoman Empire was a devout Muslim.  There's a story about him that's well-known in history and sounds interesting to listeners.  It's known as the 'sleepless night of Osman' which he spent before taking the throne.

One day, when Osman was 19 years old, his father Ertugrul went to visit a friend with his family where they would stay overnight. Osman went along too. After dinner, the host showed Osman his room and everyone retired for the night. As he was preparing to sleep, Osman noticed the Noble Quran hanging on the wall. His respect for the Holy Book of Islam prevented him from lying down, and as he was a guest, he could not take the Quran out of the room. So, he decided not to sleep until morning and sat down beside the sofa. But he was unable to stay awake all night and dozed off for a while before Fajr. As he fell asleep, he had a strange dream that left him feeling a bit uneasy. He saw a huge crescent moon rising from his chest and stretching upto the chest of his mentor, Sheikh Edebali. When Osman and his family returned to their village, he recounted this dream to Sheikh Edebali. Edebali smiled and tried to interpret the dream. He told Osman that Allah Almighty would grant him and his descendants an enormous empire, and he would get married to Sheikh Edebali's daughter. It so happened that Osman did get married to the Sheikh's daughter, Malhoon, and he did become the first ruler of the Ottoman dynasty which ruled over large portions of the Middle East, Turkey and Southern Europe for 600 years. However, this isn't supposed to mean that Sheikh Edebali knew future events. What Osman saw was a random dream and what his mentor said was only a story but happened to come true by the Will of Allah. This episode is widely known to be the reason why the Ottomans chose the crescent to represent their Empire as a harbinger of future conquests.

The Ottomans ruled successfully for hundreds of years and fought many victorious battles against Christian Europe. Thus, the symbol of the crescent moon became linked in the minds of many Europeans as a symbol of Islamic Faith. But this notion is totally incorrect, just as they carry plenty of other incorrect notions of Islam based on their superficial observation and lack of information.

In modern times too, the crescent has no other significance for Muslims except the calculation of months by observing the appearance of the moon.  The commencement of the month of Ramadan, the start of the Muslim new year of Moharram, the month of Zil-Hajj and the start and finish of the 12 months of the Hijri calendar are determined by the appearance of the moon.  This lunar cycle, from new moon to new moon, takes 29 to 30 days to complete. When the crescent moon appears in the sky at its finest, that's the first day of every Islamic month.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Satan CANNOT interfere when Allah Almighty is revealing His Message

It should be clearly understood that Satan does NOT have the power to interrupt when Allah Almighty is revealing His Message to any of the Prophets.

Apart from the Rushdie / Tabari partnership constructing the myth of Satanic verses by spewing falsehood, there are many other Christian and non-Muslim anti-Islamists thoroughly lacking in proper education who have grossly misinterpreted the Noble Quran by claiming that Satan can obstruct or interfere with the Divine Revelations. The particular verse which these ignorant people hamper with is:

"Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise;" (22:52)

The above verse does NOT mean nor refer to Satan interfering or meddling with the Divine Revelations while they are being delivered to the Prophets.

When Allah reveals His Message to a Prophet, the Prophet is required to deliver that Message to his community and the community at large is required to spread that Divine Message to other communities.

The reference of Verse 22:52 is:
After receiving the Divine Revelations, whenever a Prophet would inform his people of that Message by reciting it, Satan would try to beguile humanity with temptations so that it would reject and erase Allah's Message altogether. But Satan's efforts have always failed. Whenever he tried to spread opposition in a community, Allah (The All Powerful) would abolish the concept of opposition proposed by Satan and establish the presence of His Divine Message for the people to follow. Then, it would be the choice of the people, whether or not they decide to follow that Message. Those with wisdom, knowledge and devotion to Allah would recognize it as the truth and accept it, while those who were morally weak with stunted consciences would become prey of Satanic temptations.

Hence, interference of Satan is NOT between Allah Almighty and the Prophet during the process of Divine Revelations. Satan does NOT have the power to do that. Rather, Satan attempts to destabilize the establishment of the Divine Message by sowing seeds of rebellion in the minds of the people when the Prophet delivers that Message to them.

This is confirmed by the two verses following verse 22:52.

"That He may make that which the devil proposeth a temptation for those in whose hearts is a disease, and those whose hearts are hardened - Lo! the evil-doers are in open schism -"  (22:53)

"And that those who have been given knowledge may know that it is the truth from thy Lord, so that they may believe therein and their hearts may submit humbly unto Him. Lo! Allah verily is guiding those who believe unto a right path." (22:54)

Only those persons who are blind to the remembrance of Allah are the ones who fall into the Devil's trap. But those who recognize the Truth and desire to submit to Allah are NOT affected by the opposition and deception of Satan.

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Is there a difference between a "Prophet" and a "Messenger?"

According to the explanations of our scholars, the difference between a 'Prophet' and a 'Messenger' is: a Prophet is one who is inspired by the Divine Power periodically but does not receive any revelations forming a Divine Scripture. Messenger is one who is inspired by Allah and receives revelations resulting in the formation of a Divine Book. Then again, some splinter groups often referred to as 'modernists' nurture a different view. They claim that being a Messenger is independent of being a Prophet.

A study of the Glorious Quran tells us that both of the above views are thoroughly incorrect. The Quran conveys no such ideas at all. That's because there is no difference between a 'Prophet' and a 'Messenger' in the needless manner explained by the modernists and the scholars.

The words "Prophet" (or Nabi) and "Messenger (or Rasool) are simply two different grammatical terms elucidating two different definitions. The decision of Allah Almighty of selecting a special person to deliver His Message to humanity makes that special person a "Prophet." Following this selection, the act of delivering the Message of Allah to humanity makes that Prophet a "Messenger." As easy and clear as that.

Every Prophet was selected by Allah for the special mission of delivering His Message. No Prophet ever came without this responsibility which was the purpose of their selection. The mission of every Prophet defines the 'job description' of his Messengership. When we discuss the personality of that special person chosen by Allah, we refer to him as a "Prophet." But when we highlight the details of his mission, calling humanity to the Message of Allah, we refer to him as a "Messenger." Thus, it's not possible to be a Messenger without first being chosen as a Prophet by receiving inspiration from Allah as a confirmation of this special selection.

When Prophet Muhammad (SAAW) began being inspired, he gradually became reclusive and liked being alone, away from the noise and confusion of the society. This eventually led to his seeing Angel Gabriel at the command of Allah Almighty. That was Muhammad's Prophethood. The Divine Revelations that came periodically for the next 23 years constituted the mission of his Messengership to deliver those Messages to humanity.

Moreover, Allah Almighty knows with whom to place His Message, and He chooses a person with extraordinary morals (NOT ordinary morals) for His Mission.

This sudden confusion of differentiating between a 'Prophet' and a 'Messenger' was started by the misguided mischief-monger and fitna spreader, Rashid Khalifa, who tried to fool the world by saying that he was the "final messenger." To serve his own selfish motives, Khalifa misinterpreted Verse 33:40 of the Glorious Quran, even though this Verse gives NO reason to make any such distinctions.

"Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah is Aware {Al-'Alim} of all things." 33:40

The above verse plainly means that Allah preferred Muhammad above others (making Muhammad a Prophet) to deliver His Message (making Muhammad a Messenger). And since Allah decided to finish the process of sending Messages to humanity after the completion of the Glorious Quran, therefore after Muhammad, Allah will choose none else. This brings an end to the era of Prophethood, and subsequently (and automatically) an end to Messengership as well.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Zakah or charity

The widespread concept among mainstream Muslims is that the Noble Quran says nothing about zakah except that it must be given. It's also commonly presumed by many that the recipients of zakah are not mentioned in the Quran. Concerning the amount of zakah to be given, our brothers and sisters often insinuate that if the amount of 2.5% wasn't fixed by the Hadith, we would be in a fix because the Quran does not mention it at all. No one has ever reflected why the Quran does not fix the amount of zakah to be paid. There is a very valid reason for it. Allah Almighty NEVER forgets anything.

(Part I)

First let's briefly discuss issues like who deserves zakah, the importance of intent or 'niyyah' involved while giving zakah etc. and then we will take up the matter regarding the amount of zakah to be given with direct evidence from the Noble Quran.


"They ask you, (O Muhammad), what they shall spend. Say: That which you spend for good (must go) to parents and near kindred and orphans and the needy and the wayfarer. And whatsoever good you do, lo! Allah is Aware {Al-'Alim} of it " (2:215)

From the above verse it's crystal clear that if parents are in need, definitely we have to start our charity by financially supporting them. Thus, zakah must be given to parents if they are poor. Other categories of needy people who deserve charity include near relatives, orphans, poor persons (who are not necessarily related to us) and the traveller who is in need. All this has been very clearly elucidated by Allah Almighty in the above verse 2:215.

There are other categories as well who deserve charity.

"(Alms are) for the poor who are straitened for the cause of Allah, who cannot travel in the land (for trade). The unthinking man accounts them wealthy because of their restraint. You shall know them by their mark: They do not beg of men with importunity. And whatsoever good thing you spend, lo! Allah knows it." (2:273)

"The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarers; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is knower, Wise." (9:60)

"those whose hearts are to be reconciled" primarily refers to the new converts to Al-Islam after the conquest of Makkah. Everything else in the above two verses are very simple to understand about the recipients of zakah. I don't think I need to explain.


"He it is Who produces gardens trellised and untrellised, and the date-palm, and crops of divers flavor, and the olive and the pomegranate, like and unlike. Eat you of the fruit thereof when it fruits, and pay the due thereof upon the harvest day, and be not prodigal. Lo! Allah loves not the prodigals." (6:141)


Apparently, niyyah is more important than the exact amount one spends. Also,
Charity must be given humbly, and not with pride and arrogance.

"Those who spend their wealth for the cause of Allah and afterward make not reproach and injury to follow that which they have spent; their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them, neither shall they grieve." (2:262)

"O you who believe! Render not vain your alms giving by reproach and injury, like him who spends his wealth only to be seen of men and believes not in Allah and the Last Day." (2:264)


"A kind word with forgiveness is better than almsgiving followed by injury. Allah is Absolute, Clement." (2:263)

By reading the above verses, it is evident that what's much more important than the amount we pay as charity is our intention, feelings and behavour. A person may spend millions on charity. But if he or she spends it only as a ritual or to brag about their wealth or status, their so-called generosity will carry no weight in the Sight of Allah. On the other hand, if a financially straightened person spends a small amount which he can afford but with true devotion for Allah may find much greater acceptance by Him.


"If you publish your almsgiving, it is well, but if you hide it and give it to the poor, it will be better for you, and will atone for some of your ill deeds. Allah is Informed of what you do." (2:271)


"Those who spend (of that which Allah has given them) in ease and in adversity, those who control their wrath and are forgiving toward mankind; Allah loves the good;" (3:134)


"And they ask you what they ought to spend. Say: That which is superfluous. Thus Allah makes plain to you (His) revelations, that haply {by chance} you may reflect " (2:219)

"superfluous" means 'additional' or 'excess' or it can even be interpreted as 'additional savings.' Hence, we are to give as charity or zakah whatever money, clothes, food etc. is left over after we have fulfilled our own requirements and the requirements of our close ones. It's a matter of common sense and common knowledge that every household does not have the same financial resources, and therefore the superfluous savings of cash and kind in every home is not the same. For this reason Allah has kept the amount for zakah open so that everyone can give according to their means. Allah is considerate and kind and He never makes His rules hard for humankind to follow. The above verse 2:219 is very comprehensive that carries a very important information making it ample clear that Allah Almighty does not intend to fix the amount for zakah. After all, zakah is a spiritual tax and not a municipal or federal tax.


"O you who believe! Spend of the good things which you have earned, and of that which we bring forth from the earth for you, and seek not the bad (with intent) to spend thereof (in charity) when you would not take it for yourselves save with disdain; and know that Allah is Absolute, Owner of Praise." (2:267)

Therefore, the Noble Quran has answered every important and significant issue relating to charity or zakah. If anyone still thinks it's not enough, the problem is with those unthinking minds. Allah's Message is complete and perfect and Allah never forgets anything. That is for sure.

(Part II)

The next issue on zakah worth discussing is the lopsided sense of priority of our Hadith adherents. They must refrain from asking why the amount of zakah isn't stated in the Quran. Rather, they need to be told that since the Quran does not state the amount of zakah, no other source is entitled to fix it. That would categorically amount to altering the Quranic law and interfering with its ideology.


Human interference always makes matters imperfect. Same has happened here in the case of zakah as fixed by our imams. The rate of 2.5% to be paid as zakah as decided by the writings of our ulemas and imams is very inconsiderate and imperfect. This rule of 2.5% can make matters hard for an average man of low income and it could benefit a rich man who may afford to pay much more than 2.5%. Fixing a standard amount for the rich and commoner alike is a big flaw.

For instance: A rich Saudi prince who may have an asset of $18 billion pays 2.5% from his total assets or the income he yields from this asset. On the other hand, a common Muslim man living on social assistance getting $800 a month also pays the 2.5%as his share of zakah. I realize that there's a big difference between the yield of 2 .5% of 18 billion compared to 2.5% of 800. But proportion-wise it is the same. Therefore, either the prince is paying too little or the common man is paying too much. The imams who fixed this amount universally, apparently didn't realize that the tax range must steadily rise in accordance to the income / assets of every individual. However, for zakah, even such a planning would not be right. Numerical amounts can only be fixed for municipal or government taxes. Zakah, as I already mentioned, is not a municipal nor a governmental tax. It's a spiritual tax where Allah Almighty takes into consideration a person's intent in accordance with his or her financial means, not merely a flat rate paid by everyone as a ritual by completely disregarding the individual resources of every person.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Dowry - a bounden duty on every Muslim male

In the Noble Quran, the financial issue involving dowry has been established as mandatory upon every Muslim man who decides to marry. Dowry is a collective gift in kind or cash given to the bride by her husband during the event of marriage. There's no fixed amount for dowry. It must be decided in accordance with the man's financial means. But it is obligatory upon him to give whatever he can afford.

Individuals in certain segments of the Muslim community are being very dismissive concerning the Quranic dictate of dowry. A Facebook group claiming the title "Light of Islam" recently rejected this Quranic commandment altogether. It asserted categorically, appealing to it's members to abstain from dowry, using the same tone in which Allah Almighty has prohibited riba in the Noble Quran.

The following is the statement made by "Light of Islam" by which it has tried to insult the Noble Quran.

"By ALLAAH, neither a Muslim can take Dowry nor a person who possesses Humanity. We want all of you to make a promise: 'Promise in the name of your LORD that, you'll neither Take dowry nor will Give it to others.' " 

It's obvious that this group is spreading darkness in the name of Islam.

The extent of its desire to manipulate the Quran is completely outside the bounds of acceptable behavior. The evidences are as follows.

What does the Noble Quran state regarding this oblgatory gift? 

"And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty." (4:24) 

"so wed them by permission of their folk, and give unto them their portions in kindness, " (4:25)  

"And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honour, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines." (5:5)  

"O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries," (33:50) 

"And it is no sin for you to marry such women when ye have given them their dues. " (60:10) 

From the above verses it's crystal clear that ..

(1) Dowry is a pre-requisite for marriage which cannot be disregarded by believing men.  (2) It was obligatory even for the Prophet (SAAW).

Furthermore, in case of divorce the Quran mentions:

"It is no sin for you if ye divorce women while yet ye have not touched them, nor appointed unto them a portion. Provide for them, the rich according to his means, and the straitened according to his means, a fair provision. (This is) a bounden duty for those who do good." (2:236)

"If ye divorce them before ye have touched them and ye have appointed unto them a portion, then (pay the) half of that which ye appointed, unless they (the women) agree to forgo it," (2:237)

For divorced women a provision in kindness: a duty for those who ward off (evil). (2:241)

"Divorce must be pronounced twice and then (a woman) must be retained in honour or released in kindness. And it is not lawful for you that ye take from women aught of that which ye have given them; except (in the case) when both fear that they may not be able to keep within the limits (imposed by) Allah." (2:229)

"And if ye wish to exchange one wife for another and ye have given unto one of them a sum of money (however great), take nothing from it. Would ye take it by the way of calumny and open wrong ?" (4:20)

In the above verses it is absolutely clear that ..

(1) In case of divorce, dowry is not returnable unless the bride voluntarily decides to return it. 
(2) If divorce takes place before the consummation of marriage by which time the husband has not yet fixed a portion as gift for the bride, then he must appoint a gift and give it to her during the divorce.
(3) Even if divorce takes place before the consummation of marriage, yet the bride is entitled to retain half of the gift or dowry appointed for her.

After reading all of the above verses, there can be no doubt about the importance of dowry in a Muslim marriage to be given by the man. Anyone who rejects it is trying to change the Divine law to safeguard his personal interest. 

In fact, the very important reason why according to the Quranic law of inheritance, sons get twice the share of daughters, is because sons have plenty of financial responsibilities, unlike daughters. These responsibilities include meeting all expenses of their marriage, supporting their wives and children, supporting elderly parents and dependent siblings. Contrary to this, daughters have no such financial burdens according to Quranic laws. Any portion of wealth she inherits or earns is her personal possession with which she's not obligated to support her dependents, unless she volunteers to do so. Hence, those Muslim men who have gotten deviated enough to overrule the Quranic dictate concerning their financial duties, must also voluntarily forgo to claim double the share of inheritance. After all, Allah Almighty has commanded to give males twice the share of females with a specific reason. If some men are not able to handle that specific reason, they cannot simply dismiss their responsibility and move on without any adjustments. That would disrupt the entire balance of the structure of this law established by Allah.

So-called Muslim men of South Asian countries like Pakistan, India and Bangladesh have sunk into the depth of shamelessness by not only waiving dowry for themselves, but dumping this responsibility on the poor bride. They have picked up this kafir culture from the Hindus of India and have been adhering to it for centuries.

For further contents on this topic, check its thread at MV

Monday, July 19, 2010

Is the human conscience enough as a guide?

I had a conversation lately with an acquaintance who rejected the authority of the Glorious Quran as a guide and yet claimed to be a "believer." The person's argument was that "I use my conscience to lead my life, and conscience evolves from the inner self so it can be relied upon."   But, is the "inner self" infallible enough to be trusted at all times? Can the free human conscience universally and at all levels be separated from one's lower, superficial and materialistic desires and senses? To answer "yes" would surely require an enormously conceited mind that sees life through a very narrow prism.

God Almighty repeatedly reminds us in the Noble Quran that good deeds can be rendered futile in the Hereafter if they are not supported with the strength of Faith. A lot of people may disagree and argue against it. But the ultimate truth of the matter remains that Allah Almighty has a very valid reason for establishing this dictate. Briefly put, good and compassionate deeds done without the foundation and supervison of Faith can be no less volatile than the changing directions of sea breeze. Human conscience is largely prone to fluctations and re-adjustments as a response to the countless triggering factors of life. Thus, incidents of the human mind slipping away after being planted are never unusual.

If human conscience is left on its own, that is, conscience without the control of the Divine Guidance, there would likely be little uniformity in that type of 'conscience.' Different persons live their lives involving various blatant violations, yet they claim they are living their lives according to the rules of their "conscience" and are thus at ease with themselves. An adulterer or an adultress who systematically cheats on their spouse, or a professional swindler who steals others' money to make a living, will confidently justify their stance with their own arguments and claim that their "conscence" is intact. Even atheists and agnostics are often convinced of the infallibility of their 'conscience.' All such people will strongly disagree if told they don't have a conscience. Well, maybe they do have a 'conscience' - a conscience that's moribund and a prisoner of its own soul, in need of being revamped. But how is one supposed to revamp one's conscience?  By going back to school and acquiring additional diplomas?  Going to prison? Paying a fine? Obviously not.

It's impossible for the human conscience to blossom with firmness unless it's tightened with the influence of the principles of the Divine Message. Then only can the conscience of humankind conform with the values endorsed by Allah Almighty. Thus, Allah says in His final Message: "Say: Each one doth according to his rule of conduct, and thy Lord is Best Aware of him whose way is right." 17:84. These Words of the Divine Power clearly indicate that not all rules of human conduct go aright .. unless those rules have been made compatible with His commandments.

Don't ask me how or why, but here's the undeniable fact. A genuine and undistracted grasp of the Monothesitic Faith has tremendous and inexplicable Might to shake off the impurities that often plague the human conscience and start life afresh.

To conclude, human conscience is beneficial only if it's firmly yoked with the dictates of Faith .. a conscience that discards mere ritualism, a conscience that's built upon equity and a conscience that accepts only the final Divine Message as its sole Criterion for assessments and modifications of its spritual and ethical values.

For discussion on this thread click here

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

The unjust vilification of Prophet Noah in the Bible

This narration of the altered Bible is flabbergasting. It goes to the extent of slandering Prophet Noah as a drunkard.

'An Eye-Opening Biblical Narration'
By Ibn Anwar
Bismika Allahumma

The following is one of the most interesting Biblical stories I have came across. I thought I’d share it with the readers. Many Christians such as Sam Shamoun, Craig Winn and others simply love going around bad-mouthing the Qur’an, saying that it contains “perverted, nonsensical teachings”.

Let us have a glimpse of their “sensical” Bible.

“And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham [is] the father of Canaan. These [are] the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. And Noah began [to be] an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid [it] upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces [were] backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; the lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.“ Genesis 9:18-25 - New version

Before I proceed further I would like to state for the record that Muslims are utterly shocked and offended that the Bible portrays great messengers of God as low-live drunkards.

Coming back to the story, notice how the story says Ham, THE FATHER of Canaan. This is rather interesting. Seems like it’s trying to prove or lead to something.

In summary, Noah became drunk and dropped naked in his tent. Ham, Noah’s second son found him in that state and told his brothers about it. According to many Biblical experts, Ham didn’t just tell his brothers about it, he also laughed at his father’s state. This is considered as an offense to Noah and is the reason why Noah made the curse. The two other sons Shem and Japheth were ashamed of their father’s nakedness and covered him without looking. When Noah gained consciousness, he knew what Ham did and started cursing, “And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.”

Did you catch the joke?

Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Ham had four sons: Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan.

When the narration is analysed, a question arises: “Who was responsible for looking at Noah’s nakedness?” The answer is Ham. Christians argue that the action of Ham was a sin, hence the curse. For the sake of argument, we agree. Yet, who was responsible and thereafter cursed? Ham was responsible, but, who was made to pay? Was it Ham? No. Canaan, an innocent little child, was made to pay for the error of Ham. The father who is responsible was reprieved and the son who’s innocent was punished. Furthermore, why was Canaan out of four siblings singled out? Is this justice or madness?

Can you imagine something like that happening today? I love analogies, so let us have one.

James has four children. He committed murder. He is apprehended, brought to court and is found guilty. The judge decided that the punishment is the “injection”, i.e. death. However, the injection is given to his youngest son and he in turn is released without cost.

Once again, is this justice or madness? I leave the verdict to the readers.

In addition, read for yourself how blatantly the above strange tale of Genesis 9:18-25 contradicts the values of a narration of another version of the Bible, which says

“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” Deuteronomy 24:16

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Faith vs. Nationalism

In Islam, unity is based on Faith, not terroritory, blood, language, family or race as in nationalism.

Starting with the concept of nationalism, some may differentiate between nationalism and patriotism. While the former is linked with an 'ideology,' the latter is based upon sentiments. But a careful analysis proves this notion to be quite incorrect. Nationalism is associated with sentiments just as much as patriotism. There's little difference between the two.

Nationalism can be briefly defined as 'group instinct' or the 'love of home'. In human life, the story of nationalism begins from an accident of nature/birth, not from man's conscious will or choice. The modern era of mass emigrations gives 'nationalism' a still more superficial touch, involving little beyond a change of documents.

Most importantly, unity based on race, land, blood etc. is related to man's lower instinct and not his distinctive characteristics which make him the superior species.

The basis of human collective life has been under question since long .. whether it should be founded upon geography, race and language or on the basis of belief and intellect.

Thus, what is the difference between the Ummah (pan-Islamic unity/community as elucidated in the Noble Quran) and nationalism?

To define oneself in terms of ethnic identity of one's geographic or other heritage is not the ideology of the Noble Quran. Ethnic and territorial identities are bound to lead to racism, provincialism, bias and discrimination. That's inevitable. But the ideology of unity based on Faith leaves no room for any such superficial conepts or priorities. The true concept of Faith has a tremendous bonding power by eradicating polarisation and conflicts originating from other issues or sources.

A system must be envisioned as an integral part of the foundation of life as conveyed by the Quran. All Prophets in the past who came with the Divine Message highlighted the importance of unity based on belief and faith, the height of which was attained by Islam in establishing a nation of conviction called the Islamic Ummah.

The other system was that of paganism which based unity upon geographical boundaries, color, language, race, family, tribal and political power. All ancient, pre-Islamic 'civilizations' like that of the Arabian peninsula, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome etc. based their unity on the above factors. Such an ideology is distinctly in line with Satanism. Satan considered himself superior because he was created from fire, which is the equivalent of the human concept of superiortiy based on race and blood.

Humans have two natural tendencies the lower and higher instincts. The lower instinct makes them do things without careful thinking. This, along with various spontaneous desires, also include attachment to land, blood and wealth. Allah Almighty has endowed humans with a higher instinct too. This is the intellectual side which enables them to reflect. As explained by Al-Islam.org, man's intellectual nature includes his "intelligence, self-awareness and belief, faculties which are unique to him and also the desire for perfection, knowledge and the ideal." This higher instinct, if enhanced to its maximum, can control and transform the lower instinct.

The difference between these two inherent human tendencies exposes the flaws of the school of nationalism and the distinct superiority of the school of the Prophets, consisting of the instructions of the Divine Power.

Quoting a fine excerpt from Al-Islam.org, "In the school of the prophets, the determining factor and criterion has nothing to do with territory, blood, food or sex; but it is rather man's belief, ideology and ideals which originate from his awareness, intellect and knowledge, which give him an exalted position among creatures and enable him to dominate the world. So long as he is bonded to such things as land and blood, he remains at the animal level, but once he steps higher towards belief and ideology, he attains the human level. .. That is why we reject nationalism, communism and all other futile 'isms' and turn to the Divine School which is based on belief, a search for perfection and man's unique quality."

Thus, nationalism helps to demote man to the animal level by weakening his faculties and making him shallow. On the other hand, unity based on Faith helps to enhance man's animal instincts into something much higher and more meaningful.

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." - Albert Einstein

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Can jinn "possess" humans?

Some say 'yes' while others say 'no.' But as believers, we got to take the Glorious Quran as our Criterion (Furqan). Does the Quran say that jinn can possess humans? The answer is no.

From the information in the Quran, jinn, like humans can be believing or disbelieving. Therefore, they can be obedient or disobedient like humans.

In the Quran there is no such concept as jinn 'possessing' humans. But they can mislead humans invisibly with temptations, similar to Shaitaan who is also a jin and tempts humans to disobey Allah, The Almighty. The disbelieving or disobedient jinn are followers of Shaitaan similar to disbelieving or disobedient humans.

Shaitaan is invisible to human eyes. “Lo! He seeth you, he and his tribe, from whence ye see him not.” (Al-Araf: 27) From this it must be concluded that temptations by jinn are definitely invisible to humans.  Concerning the accuracy of those countless paranormal stories where people emphatically claim to have seen jinn or apparitions or inexplicable figures as passing figures can only be confirmed by Allah.  After all, jinn as elemental spirits do exist, not a doubt about that.  Then again, there are stories from the Hadith about the jinn changing their form into young or old men or women or even animals. But these must be taken as unreliable stories because the Quran does not confirm such notions nor the concept of jinn having the ability to change their appearance.

Some readers have misunderstood and misinterpreted the following Verse of the Glorious Quran as the devil or jin possessing humans.

"And make mention (O Muhammad) of Our bondman Job, when he cried unto his Lord (saying): Lo! the devil does afflict me with distress and torment." Saad (38:41)

This verse does not imply that the devil had 'possessed' Prophet Job.  He is crying out to Allah for help because of the misfortunes in his life. What exactly those misfortunes might have been is not possible for us to assert. That's only known to Allah. It's very likely that the misfortunes in his life came as a result of his own mistakes, inadvertently or otherwise, by falling into some undesirable temptation (caused by the devil) and then repenting to Allah. Allah accepted his repentence. Thus, "distress and torment" would refer to the hardships caused by the misfortunes and the anxiety of remorse.

The idea of being "possessed" by jinn originates because of the following reasons:

1) Lack of knowledge of the Glorious Quran
2) Lack of common education
3) Lack of understanding of the human mind, misinterpreting psychological disorders such as schizophrenia, hysteria, manic depression etc. as being "possessed by jinn."

We are certain that the Glorious Quran does not mention nor allude the idea of jinn nor Satan having the ability to physically and perceptibly 'possess' humans against their wishes. But the Quran does confirm that they tempt by whispering invisibly to humans, that is, aspirations of thoughts and ideas that can be categorized as transgressions. Subsequently, those humans who have a weak iman, get trapped into the devils' temptations while those who are firmly grounded in Faith are unhurt by its invisible mischief.

"O Children of Adam! Let not Satan seduce you as he caused your (first) parents to go forth from the Garden and tore off from them their robe (of innocence) that he might manifest their shame to them. Lo! he seeth you, he and his tribe, from whence ye see him not. Lo! We have made the devils protecting friends for those who believe not." Al-Araf (7:16-17)

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Salaat to be offered five times daily, not thrice

As per Quranic dictates it's obligatory for every believer to offer salaat five times a day, and not just three times as wrongly propagated by groups, primarily for the purpose of convenience.

Surprising as it may seem, there are many Muslims who aren't even aware that the Glorious Quran mentions all five prayer timings.

Kindly check the following verses of the Quran on information of the five prayers. Quranic expressions as "celebrate the praise of thy Lord" and "Unto Him be praise" etc. are references to commandments of worshipping Allah.

(1) Dohr and Maghrib prayers are instructed in Verses 11:114,  and references to Fajr and Isha in V. 24:58.

"Establish worship at the TWO ENDS OF THE DAY and in some watches of the night. Lo! good deeds annul ill-deeds. This is reminder for the mindful." (11:114)

"O ye who believe! Let your slaves, and those of you who have not come to puberty, ask leave of you at three times (before they come into your presence): Before THE PRAYER OF THE DAWN, and when ye lay aside your raiment for the heat of noon, and after THE PRAYER OF THE NIGHT. Three times of privacy for you. It is no sin for them or for you at other times, when some of you go round attendant upon others (if they come into your presence without leave). Thus Allah maketh clear the revelations for you. Allah is Knower, Wise." (24:58)

Please note, "two ends of the day" in verse 11:114 refers to Fajr and Maghrib prayers.

In verse 24:58, the terms "prayer of dawn" and "prayer of night" that is, Fajr and Isha, are directly stated.

(2) The Noon Prayer (Dohr), given in 30:18

"Unto Him be praise in the heavens and the earth! - and at the sun's decline and IN THE NOONDAY. (30:18)

"in the nooday" refers to Dohr prayer, that is, noon time prayer or early afternoon prayer.

(3) The Afternoon Prayer (Asr), given in 2:238

"Be guardians of your prayers, and of the MIDMOST PRAYER, and stand up with devotion to Allah. (2:238)"

"midmost prayer" in 2:238 is the Asr prayer which comes later in the afternoon. Being the third prayer of the five, it is in the center of the five prayers.

(4) The sunset Prayer (Maghrib), given in 11:114 and 17:78

"Establish worship at the TWO ENDS OF THE DAY and in some watches of the night. Lo! good deeds annul ill-deeds. This is reminder for the mindful." (11:114)

"Establish worship at the GOING DOWN OF THE SUN UNTIL THE DARK OF NIGHT, and (the recital of) the Qur'an at dawn. Lo! (the recital of) the Qur'an at dawn is ever witnessed." (17:78)

As already mentioned, in 11:114 "two ends of the day" refer to Dohr and Maghrib prayers.

In 17:78, "going down of the sun until the dark of night" is the time after sunset till it turns completely dark .. precisely the time for Maghrib prayers. Very simple.

(5) The Night Prayer (Isha), given in 24:58

"O ye who believe! Let your slaves, and those of you who have not come to puberty, ask leave of you at three times (before they come into your presence): Before the prayer of dawn, and when ye lay aside your raiment for the heat of noon, and after THE PRAYER OF NIGHT. Three times of privacy for you. It is no sin for them or for you at other times, when some of you go round attendant upon others (if they come into your presence without leave). Thus Allah maketh clear the revelations for you. Allah is Knower, Wise." (24:58)

As stated earlier, "the prayer of night" is a direct reference to Isha or night prayers, when night has full taken place at least an hour after sunset or Maghrib prayers.


Verse 20:130 (Surah Ta-Ha) consists of references to all 5 prayers.

"Therefor (O Muhammad), bear with what they say, and celebrate the praise of thy Lord ere THE RISING OF THE SUN AND ERE THE GOING DOWN THEREOF. And glorify Him SOME HOURS OF THE NIGHT and at the TWO ENDS OF THE DAY, that thou mayst find acceptance." (20:130)

"ere rising of the sun" = Fajr
"ere going down thereof" = Asr
"some hours of the night" = Isha, can also include Tahajjud
"two ends of the day" = Dohr and Maghrib

Thus, it's obligatory for every Muslim to offer salaat five times a day. Only in unusual and difficult circumstances, certain prayers can be combined together. Dohr and Asr prayers are sometimes offered together. Maghrib and Isha are also grouped together. However, this is to be done only in extraordinary situations and NOT to be made a practice for the sake of convenience. The purpose of offering prayers five times daily is to distribute our love and remembrance of Allah throughout every single day with a proper balance. Therefore, Allah says "Worship at fixed times hath been enjoined on the believers." (4:103) Mark the words "fixed times."

There are several more verses in the Glorious Quran that mention the times allocated to the five different prayers throughout every single day. The verses quoted above are a few out of many more.