Archive for the ‘religion.logic’ Category

Can an Unmarried Muslim Woman Adopt a Child?

November 17, 2017

The term adoption, in a religious sense, in an unmarried woman’s case would not apply. Moreover here the issue of lineage also does not arise, therefore, would obviate the issue of inheritance in the religious sense. Helping someone, without flunking out the religious boundaries, is reward-worthy in the sight of Allah (SWT).

[An unmarried woman, in religious sense, would be a guardian/sponsor of the child]

Textual injunction/position on the topic

“…nor does He make your adopted sons into real sons. These are only words from your mouths, while God speaks the truth and guides people to the right path. Name your adopted sons after their real fathers; this is more equitable in God’s eyes—if you do not know who their real fathers are [they are your] ‘brothers-in-religion’ and protégés.”
[Qur`an 33:4-5]

(I seek refuge in Allah (SWT) for any inadvertent misstatement).


Saudi Turmoil.

November 7, 2017




Image result for pic of saudi crown prince mohammed bin salman


Is it really a crackdown on corruption or coup-d’etat? There seems to be a tug of war unleashed after the appointment of the Current Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman. Those who have been rounded up have their own strong clout and may cause the collapse of the kingdom. People should not ignore the engulfing quietness in the Middle East; people despite lavish lifestyle are not happy with their ruling elites; who they consider as the usurpers of the power and resources of their countries, a strong motive to rebel once a strong possibility of success presents itself. Saudi Arabian Collapse would provide them this opportunity hence a huge Geo-political change in the Gulf specifically and the Middle East, in general, could not be ruled out. I can envision a single hybrid (Sharia’a and Democratic principles based)  Muslim State. Which may be a harbinger of enormous change in the Muslim World.

The world as a whole is changing, adapting to the inevitable changes in the socio-economic, politico-psychologic and theosophic realms. KSA, being a constituent of the changing world cannot stay aloof or immune from these dynamics. Though resisted for a long time.

Wahabbism has always been a minority followed sect, never achieving a widespread acceptance. Saudi Arabia’s reforms are in essence under duress in the aftermath of 9/11. These are being promulgated despite conservative clerical opposition yet condescending to the West.

Reforms always have to be organic, endogenous and gradual. This complacent adventurism, however, may prove to be detrimental.

My concerns and thoughts were echoed by Bruce Reidel of Brooking Institue in his article, published on 11/07/17, “Trump’s bet on Saudis looks increasingly dangerous”


October 29, 2017


Image of Woman in Burka




The burqa is more of a traditional garb than the religious covering. It nevertheless, serves as a religious requirement of Hijab.

A Muslim woman is not supposed to get involved with opposite sex unnecessarily; especially when there is no third person (Chaperon like) or people around, for it leads to evil due to the presence of, on the prowl, SATAN.

Islam instinctively is a pre-emptive religion to prevent its adherents from getting involved into sinfulness.

They, however, are not prevented from going to work as long as it does not conflict with the religious requirements.

Does one have to believe/agree with everything in Islam to be a Muslim?

October 27, 2017

First and foremost things is the pronouncement of—article of faith—-Shahadah.

Thereafter, in general, Islam demands for a “Blind Faith” in Unseen Allah, Angels, and the Hereafter; retribution, Hell and Heaven; along with the Prophet Muhammad as the last of the Prophets and Qura’an the Last Divine Un-Interpolated Scripture; a source of guidance and mercy, for the entire Human beings and Gene beings. One also has to believe in all the Prophets as and the Scriptures descended on them. Anyone falling short on any of these would not be considered a Muslim. (Q, 4: 150, 151, 152)

Indeed, those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and wish to discriminate between Allah and His messengers and say, “We believe in some and disbelieve in others,” and wish to adopt a way in between “

“Those are the disbelievers, truly. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment”

“But they who believe in Allah and His messengers and do not discriminate between any of them – to those He is going to give their rewards. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful”

Note: Jews and Christians who have already passed away before Islam would be judged on the basis of their Belief in Allah (His oneness) and Hereafter.

Worldly achievements (hard-work) laced with unending anxieties.

October 27, 2017

Islam does not espouse the over-entanglement in worldly affairs but the worship of Allah (SWT). That is the reason that nowhere in Qura’an or Hadith the emphasis is laid on “Hard-work” as such. It is mentioned at one places in Qura’an—”When the prayer ends, disperse through the land and seek the favor of God. Remember Him often so that perhaps you will have everlasting happiness” (Q, 62:10) At another it is mentioned— “Say (O Muhammad): O my people! Work according to your power. Lo! I too am working. Thus ye will come to know for which of us will be the happy sequel. Lo! the wrongdoers will not be successful” (Q ,6 : 135) Yet in another instance it was told to Maryam (A.S) while ready to deliver Jesus Christ,: “Shake the trunk of the palm-tree towards thee: it will drop fresh, ripe dates upon thee” (Q, 19:25).
That is why Allah (SWT) took the responsibility of Providing sustenance to all sentient beings upon Himself; not making it contingent upon hard-work, He instead advised and expected conscious beings to busy themselves with His worship.

The reason for the necessity based approach to the worldly achievement; is their diminishing or fleeting character, which entraps one in unending anxiety.
Allah (SWT) however did advise sentient beings to exert themselves for the Hereafter. But whoever desires the Hereafter and exerts the effort due to it while he is a believer – it is those whose effort is ever appreciated [by Allah]”(Q, 17:19) 

which is free from this menace and provides an everlasting equanimity and serenity in this world and the Hereafter.

Ease of performance in the religion Islam.

October 21, 2017





Image result for pic of ablution

Allah says in Surah Al Mo’menoon. Verse # 78. “He has chosen you and has (yet) not laid upon you in religion any hardship”. At another place in Surah Al Arraf Verse # 199 Prophet was instructed to “Accept what people can do easily” which means he should not be expecting too strict a compliance in religious matters. The Prophet then said (Hadith) “ I have been commanded by Allah to accept common or unexceptional obedience from people in their worship and behavior—I, therefore, have decided to do the same as long as I am in their company”
Then there is a very brief Hadith of the Prophet. “Ad Din Yusr” which is regarding religious obligations and Sharia and said – “He is leaving with us an easy and practicable law; which is neither cumbersome not susceptible to going astray” Allah also says in verse 78 “strive towards me with efforts which is my due” and in return you will be the owners of the Paradise forever. The point to ponder is,
“It is His due anyway” and we can comply without any hardship. Then why Not!

How to maintain focus while praying?

October 19, 2017


Related image

It is not unusual. This happens to most of the people.

One may, however, imagine either, 1) God is watching him OR, 2) He/She is standing in front of Allah(SWT), or He/She is watching Allah (SWT).

Seek help in patience and prayer; and truly it is hard save for the khaashi-oon, Who know that they will have to meet their Lord and that unto Him they are returning. (Q, 2: 44–45)

Successful indeed are the believers. Those who in prayer are khashi-oon. (Q, 23: 1–2)

Note: Khusu is not “mandatory” as is generally assumed, for it is not in the control of human being. The requirement in above verses is advisory only. In the first verse, its achievement is acknowledged to be difficult for a common man, but one should try his/her best to achieve it.  “Allah does not encumber anyone beyond his capacity” (Q, 2:286)

Good News is that; when one struggles in such a situation to concentrate on his salah, gets rewarded doubly. Once for praying and once for struggling to concentrate. (H).

In Islamic parlance, it is called “Ehsan”. A concerted effort is required to attain this position/state. A few and far between really achieve it—-called Muhsenoon or khaashioon.

{(I seek refuge in all merciful Allah (SWT)}


Creationism Vs Evolutionism from Islamic perspective

October 1, 2017


Image result for free pics of human evolution

An up-close study of the Holy Qura’an and Science reveals that the systems, of evolution and creation, are at work simultaneously. Human in the first instance, for example, was created in its final form as “ADAM” (PBUH); so was Eve, fully developed to eventually co-habit with Adam (PBUH) and produce Children.(Q, 2:35, 36)  After that, in the second instance; however reproduction was subjected to an evolutionary process; in the womb of the mother, from clinging clot to the fully grown baby of 9 or so months old.  (Q, 23:13, 14)  {Embryology did not exist as a science at the time of the Prophet. Neither was special terminology yet.

“One modern scholar, Usaama al-Azami, suggested that both narratives of creation and of evolution, as understood by modern science, may be believed by modern Muslims as addressing two different kinds of truth, the revealed and the empirical” [3]



The story of the creation of Adam (A.S) and creationism as such, is scattered all over Qura’an in the following Surahs:  2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 20, 21, 38 and others.

Science, on the other hand, has failed to conclusively establish human evolution from other species.

A single-celled organism, however, was allowed/assigned a perpetual evolution, thereby culminating in many a species at different intervals on its evolutionary journey. Its mutation or selected mutation is still ongoing; according to the changing factors necessitating evolution, and many new species keep emerging. In human beings, however, this change seems to have been perfected (with the exception of external/cosmetic changes, such as skin color pigmentation etc). Confirmed in Holy Qura’an) as “We have created man in best of symmetry” (Q, 95:4)


Negation of the evolutionary process, in Human, except external/cosmetic adaptations (Q, 30:30)


Asad : AND SO, set thy face 25  steadfastly towards the [one ever-true] faith, turning away from all that is false, 26  in accordance with the natural disposition which God has instilled into man: 27  [for,] not to allow any change to corrupt what God has thus created 28  – this is the [purpose of the one] ever-true faith, but most people know it not.
Malik : Therefore, stand firm in your devotion to the upright faith – the nature made by Allah, the one on which mankind is created – and the laws of Nature ordained by Allah cannot be changed. That is the standard of true faith, but most among mankind do not know.


Pickthall : So set thy purpose (O Muhammad) for religion as a man by nature upright— nature (framed) of Allah, in which He hath created, man. There is no altering (the laws of) Allah’s creation. That is the right religion, but most men know not.
Yusuf Ali : So set thou thy face steadily and truly to the Faith: (Establish) Allah’s handiwork according to the pattern on which He has made mankind: no change (let there be) in the work (wrought) by Allah: that is the standard Religion: but most among mankind understand not.  3540   3541   3542 

 “O children of Adam (R.A)! We have descended for you raiment to conceal your shame, and splendid vesture (to adore yourself), but the covering of  TAQWA is the best” (Q, 7:26)  (dress would have not been sent to “Apes” but fully developed human being).


Qura’an affirms both the parallels—creationism (2:35 &36) & Evolutionism (23:13 &14).

Human-being, along with some other species as well, falls under creationism. Most, species, however, evolved from single cell organism to complex organisms. (Selective, ordained Mutation).

“In the 19th century, a scholar of Islamic revivalJamal-al-Din al-Afghānī agreed with Darwin that life will compete with other life in order to succeed. He also believed that there was competition in the realm of ideas similar to that of nature. However, he believed explicitly that life was created by God;[19] Darwin did not discuss the origin of life, saying only “Probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some primordial form, into which life was first breathed”.[20] A contemporary of Al-Afghani, Shia scholar Hussein al-Jisr, declared that there is no contradiction between evolution and the Islamic scriptures. He stated that “there is no evidence in the Quran to suggest whether all species, each of which exists by the grace of God, were created all at once or gradually,” and referred to the aforementioned story of creation in Sūrat al-Anbiyā.[21] In Turkey, important scholars strove to accommodate the theory of evolution in Islamic scripture during the first decades of the Turkish Republic; their approach to the theory defended Islamic belief in the face of scientific theories of their times” [23] 


Immunological Time Scale for Homonid Evolution

  1. Vincent M. Sarich1
  2. Allan C. Wilson2                                     Science  01 Dec 1967:
    158, Issue 3805, pp. 1200-1203
    DOI: 10.1126/science.158.3805.1200

 Several workers have observed that there is an extremely close immunological resemblance between the serum (pale yellow liquid that separates from the clot in the coagulation of the blood) albumins (sulfur-containing water-soluble proteins which coagulates when heated) of apes and man. Our studies with the quantitative micro-complement fixation method confirm this observation. To explain the closeness of the resemblance, previous workers suggested that there has been a slowing down of albumin evolution since the time of divergence of apes and man. Recent evidence, however, indicates that the albumin molecule has evolved at a steady rate. Hence, we suggest that apes and man have a more recent common ancestry than is usually supposed. Our calculations lead to the suggestion that, if man and old world monkeys last shared a common ancestor 30 million years ago, then man and African apes shared a common ancestor 5 million years ago, that is, in the Pliocene era


Above work/experiment clearly shows a focused/targeted experiment on apes, (most probably due to ape’s close proximity with a man) ignoring the possibility of serum and albumins being a commonplace amongst many other species. (Q, 30:30; apparently negates the evolution in human).

The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doubt?  C. E. OXNARD*

“Although most studies emphasise the similarity of the australopithecines to modern man, and suggest, therefore, that these creatures were bipedal tool-makers at least one form of which (Australopithecus africanus—“Homo habilis”, “Homo Africanus”) was almost directly ancestral to man, a series of multivariate statistical studies of various postcranial fragments suggests other conclusions. Their locomotion may not have been like that of modern man, and may, though including a form or forms of bipedality, have been different enough to allow marked abilities for climbing. Bipedality may have arisen more than once, the Australopithecinae displaying one or more experiments in bipedality that failed. The genus Homo may, in fact, be so ancient as to parallel entirely the genus Australopithecus thus denying the latter a direct place in the human lineage”



Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

Robert L. Crowther, II | @RLCrowther

Drift, Admixture, and selection in human evolution: study with DNA Polymorphisms

A M BowcockJ R KiddJ L MountainJ M HebertL CarotenutoK K Kidd, and L L Cavalli-Sforza

Department of Genetics, Stanford University, CA 94305.


“Accuracy of evolutionary analysis of populations within a species requires the testing of a large number of genetic polymorphisms belonging to many loci. We report here a reconstruction of human differentiation based on 100 DNA polymorphisms tested in five populations from four continents. The results agree with earlier conclusions based on other classes of genetic markers but reveal that Europeans do not fit a simple model of independently evolving populations with equal evolutionary rates. Evolutionary models involving early admixture are compatible with the data. Taking one such model into account, we examined through simulation whether random genetic drift alone might explain the variation among gene frequencies across populations and genes. A measure of the variation among populations was calculated for each polymorphism, and its distribution for the 100 polymorphisms was compared with that expected for a drift-only hypothesis. At least two-thirds of the polymorphisms appear to be selectively neutral, but there are significant deviations at the two ends of the observed distribution of the measure of variation: a slight excess of polymorphisms with low variation and a greater excess with high variation. This indicates that a few DNA polymorphisms are affected by natural selection, rarely heterotic, and more often disruptive, while most are selectively neutral”


Evolution was an Islamic Theory Before Darwin was Even Born!

“O thou man! Verily thou art ever toiling on towards thy Lord-
Painfully toiling, -but thou shalt meet Him… So I do call
to witness the ruddy glow Of Sunset; the Night and its Homing;
And the Moon In her Fullness:
Ye shall surely travel From stage to stage.”

Q: Surah 84 Inshiqaq verses 6, 16-19


Muslim Scholars wrote about evolution 900 years before Darwin was born.

Al-Jahiz (776-868)

Nasir ad-Din Tusi (1201-1274)

Muhammad al-Nakhshabi (10th century)



“With regard to sense-perception made him very hesitant to accept the infallibility of reason. He believed in the testimony of sense till it was contradicted by the verdict of reason. Well, perhaps there is above reason another judge who if he appeared would convict reason of falsity and if such a third arbiter is not yet apparent it does not follow that he does not exist.”

With this quote from Ghazali (R.A) the discussion is left to be concluded according to one’s level of understanding and intellect.








Which Morality—Modern or Virtuous–is Right?

September 1, 2017
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (by Shakir Mumtaz January 2017)

(Morality based on common sense! Can common sense be trusted? Ethical Egoism says that “One person’s common sense may be another person’s naïve platitude” It is also called “revisionist theory” for it declares that “our common sense moral views may be mistaken, therefore, need to be changed”)

Morality predicates every facet of human life. It has always been, fervently, debated by the scholars and thinkers of almost all the societies, as to what constitutes morality, what should be its source and how its parameters should be determined and so on. I have therefore embarked on this interesting but multifarious topic to explore; by consulting various perspectives and sources, and present a cogent picture for the readers; to make up their own mind, after weighing for and against reasons and arguments.

Modern morality (or moral philosophy) has a rich and fascinating history. A great many thinkers have approached the subject from a wide variety of perspectives and have produced theories that both attract and repel the thoughtful people. Almost all the classical theories developed by philosophers of undoubted genius are, however, vulnerable to crippling objections. Hence, one is left wondering what to believe?

Derek Parfit, “Reasons and Persons” 1984 put it very aptly as “Non-religious ethics (Morality) is the youngest and least advanced” Thomas Hobbs, foremost British philosopher of 17th Century tried (unsuccessfully) to provide an alternative to Divine Philosophy*1 by arguing as follow. “Suppose we take away all the props for morality. We assume, first, that there is no God to issue commands and reward virtues; and second, that there are no moral facts built into the nature of things. Moreover, we deny that there is any sort of universal altruism built into human nature—we see people as essentially motivated to pursue their own interests. If we cannot appeal to God, moral facts or natural altruism, is there anything left on which morality might be found? After all this, he suggests an alternate, in the form of “Social contract” and commonly accepted mechanism (Govt.), to enforce the terms of the contract. Then he conjectures an untenable “state of nature”, insinuating absolute chaos, to support his hypothesis. “State of nature”*2 is governed by “the Laws of Nature” and Laws of Nature not only describes “how things are” but also “how things ought to be” as well. Things are always as they “ought to be” solemnly serving their natural purposes (Theory of the law of nature). He replaced God with altruism and moral facts and His command and control by an indispensable Government. Mundane and temporal end-result suggested was— “the gain of the benefits of social living”. This outrageous endeavor could simply be classed as a “Blatant Hobbesian Intellectual Egoism”{Dishonesty/Arrogance). After close scrutiny of this hypothesis, Thomas Hobbs is also found to be guilty of defying “the minimum conception of morality”. (By the way, Islamic theology makes use of “minimum conception” with respect to the performance of basic obligatory rituals, ensuring the salvation of the believers in the hereafter).

It might be of interest for the readers to know, that morality is not an issue as such in most parts; especially in predominantly monotheistic and polytheistic societies, of the world at all. Centuries-old religious ethos shaped their cultural traditions and social practices in consonance and the life goes on smoothly. The issue of morality, for the most part, arises when an equitable and just resolution is sought in the face of conflicting interests. It is generally thought that formulation of morality started from the Greeks. This treatise, therefore, would start from there; foregoing the issue of the actual origin of morality, which according to some sources goes back to Prophet Adam. Greek philosophers such as Pluto, Aristotle and Socrates and some other eminent scholars resorted to reason in formulating the moral laws of their time; while counting on the character to establish the virtuous traits of a man. Questions were framed as “What is the good of man?”, “What traits of character make one a good man?” This was happening 400 years before the time of Jesus Christ. With the spread of Christianity however, a new idea of “Law Giver” and “Obedience to His commands” was introduced. St Augustine, the most influential and prominent thinker of 4th Century, however, “distrusted the reason” and taught that virtuous life rests in the unwavering subordination to the commandments. From here on when the Christian Scholars, philosophers discussed the issue of virtues; it was within the context of “Divine Law”, and theological virtues including “Obedience” occupying the central place. On the contrary, Greeks gave “reason” the center stage. They viewed the “reason” the source of practical wisdom. Virtuous life for them was inseparable from the life of reason.

After renaissance, however, morality took another turn and Philosophers stopped turning to the Greek way of reasoning or Christian way of obedience to “Divine Law” but to its secular equivalent called “Moral Law”. “Divine Fiat” was replaced by “Human reason” and by following its directive would decide which actions are right? The question was changed from “what traits of character make a good person” to “what is the right thing to do?” “Virtue” was replaced by secular ‘rightness of actions” & “obligations” thereby promoting the element of individualism and self-interest (selfishness). Human reason gave rise to the conception of Hubristic “ought” as a standard for most advantageous actions; petrifying the Human-reason with inconsistency; hence similar reasoning was acceptable in one situation, but not in the other. Later moral theories from the seventeenth century onward; such as “Ethical egoism”, “Utilitarianism”, “Social Contract Theory”, all were developed and promoted in the same vein of individualism and self-centeredness.

Utilitarianism, in particular, proved to be the harbinger of Religion divested morality. A theory presented by David Hume (1711-1776) formalized by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), vehemently advocated by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and his son James Mill. After the 18th and 19th century’s series of upheavals, America was a newly developing country and traditional morality was up in the air. Bentham’s conception of Religion divested morality; in conscious opposition to Christianity; especially for those escaping the Church of England’s persecution, proved to be a boon. He argued “Morality is not a matter of pleasing God, nor is it a matter of faithfulness to abstract rules. Morality is nothing more than the attempt to bring about as much happiness as possible in this world” Bentham was also given the assignment of reforming the laws and constitution of England along utilitarian lines. Needless to say that despite huge influence utilitarianism had severe flaws. One of its more developed forms, Act-Utilitarianism, recognized it to be a “radical doctrine” “that implied that many of our moral feelings may be mistaken” Ethical Egoism, as a “revisionist theory”, also asserted the same theme.

An Australian philosopher J.J.C Smart (1961) published a monograph, challenging the common sense (morality) as it cannot be trusted. His assertion challenges us to rethink matters that we have taken for granted. To accentuate the point further, here is the opinion of a Swedish Sociologist Gunner Myrdal which he gave after his classic study—American dilemma in 1944 ”There must be still other countless errors of the same sort that no living man can yet detect, because of the fog within which our type of Western cultures envelops us…”

Bentham and Mill were leading a revolution as radical as Marx and Darwin of 19th Century. To understand the radicalness of their theory an excerpt is quoted as “Gone are all references to God or to abstract moral rules written in the heavens. Morality is no longer to be understood as faithfulness to some divinely given code or to some set of inflexible rules” The concept of individualistic worldly happiness—known as “Hedonism”– was promoted. Mills introduction of the notion “Individual is sovereign” pushed it even further.

Kantian morality although, hovers around religious lines but; he seems to have circumvented God and religion; probably to prove that besides; all- encompassing God’s commands notion; there are rational and logical grounds on which Divine Morality could be asserted with the same potency. Kant however, abjured the serpent-windings of the Utilitarian theory because, he said, the theory is incompatible with human dignity. (God confers “dignity” to human—Qua’an 17:70). His formulation of “hypothetical Imperatives” VS “Categorical Imperatives” exposes the vainness of Modern Morality. It can, therefore, safely be deduced that most of these Religion-Divested Moral theories provide only plausible answers to the difficult questions, but lack the potency and conviction of Divine Morality– providing definitive solutions built in the rigor of observance of its rules and rituals. (All classic theorists, needless to say, hold not only opposing but critical views about Divine Morality).

Recent thinking on morality is ready to take yet another turn. Philosophers are debunking the ”Moral Law” theory as bankrupt and advocating radical idea to go back to virtue based Aristotelian Morality to salvage the subject. This idea was first floated by a British Philosopher G.E.M Anscombe in 1958; suggesting that modern moral philosophy is misguided because it rests on an incoherent notion of “law” without a “Law Giver” She further elaborated that the very concepts of obligation, duty, and rightness, on which the modern philosophers have concentrated their attention, are inextricably linked to this nonsensical idea. Therefore, she argued, we should return to Aristotelian approach, and virtue should once again take the center stage.

Philosophers in this camp share the opinion, that virtue-based morality is 
superior to the other kind of (Religion divested) morality because of the 
following reasons. 

1) Moral Motivation. Virtuous Morality is appealing because it provides a natural and attractive account of moral motivation while the other kind of morality falters on this account. It can be explained in terms of an example quoted, in Journal of philosophy in 1976, where the value of merit of morality was juxtaposed duty. In this case, a patient was visited by some friend; that made patient delighted but: when he found out that the visitor was just doing his duty and did not really come for him, the visit turned cold and bereft of moral value. The desire to do the right thing for the right reason and doing it out of an abstract sense of duty is not the same. 2) Ideals of Impartiality. Virtuous morality can accommodate partialities very well since it recognizes that some virtues are partial and some are not. It also recognizes that love of family and friends is an inescapable feature of the morally good life. Ideals of Impartiality in modern moral philosophy, however, do not add up. John Stewart Mill put the point very succinctly when writing about Utilitarianism that “Utilitarianism requires (the moral Agent) to be as strictly impartial as a benevolent and disinterested spectator”. A mother loves her children and cares for them in a way that she does not care for other children. “She is partial to them through and through”. Same is the case with friends and family members.

3) Divine Morality provides a pleasing practical “fit” between; – a) Impartiality of reason. b) Adherence to set rules for life, serving everyone’s interest. c) Fulfillment of our natural inclination and moral duty to care about others. Making morally behaving a natural dispensation. 4) An Anthropocentric view of Aristotle (and of many philosophers of ancient); which modern philosophers and scientists vehemently refute, has been categorically asserted in Qura’an. This assertion, in the same vein, also refutes the accusation of the human being as “vein-species”. Conclusion A trajectory of traits of both the schools of Philosophy has been presented above, making it easy for the readers, to weigh and decide for themselves.

  • 1Divine Philosophy—means virtue/religion based philosophy.
  • 2Always serving their purpose regardless of our favorable or unfavorable understanding of their operations.
  • 3 Moral philosophy and Modern Morality are interchangeably used.

Interpersonal relationship between Muslim and Non-Muslim

August 31, 2017

“Let not the believers take those who deny the truth for their allies in preference to the believers since he who does this cuts himself off from God in everything – unless it is to protect one against them in this way. But God warns you to beware of Him: for with God is all journeys’ end.” (Q, 3:28) 


Muslim seem oblivious to or Ignorant of this important aspect of Islamic teachings. Befriending Non-Muslim has become cursorial; Muslim are dealing and even living with them (in a relationship) like with their fellow Muslim. {Muslim women marrying Non-Muslim men is strictly forbidden and Haram) Read: –


Although, it can be easily understood from the Qura’anic text that dealing with the Non-Muslims, despite the requisite cordiality, compassion and empathy, ought to be within defined limitations. Non-Muslim should be helped and dealt with on purely humanitarian/empathetic grounds, but without, any emotional attachment. Such attachment is permissible only with fellow Muslim. The obviating reason is that they do not subscribe to Islamic faith/religion and are rather against it. Disbelievers (in Islam) are described in Qura’an as the enemies of Allah (SWT)(Q, 8: 59,60) {Despite the fact that, they may express nothing of the sort, or may even offer a favorable opinion—which would tantamount to a lip service in the face of their disbelief}.

Note:- From the Psychological point of view, such contents of words may be fallacious, due to their (Non-Muslim) long ingrained and sustained experiences otherwise, for their body language would be sending a (true but) contrary messages.  

A formal friendship at the level of mutual dealing is, no doubt, permissible; but, that too is not favored if Unnecessary.

In Qura’an it has been declared repeatedly that– they would like to see you adopting their faith and way of life. (Psychological truth)  From everyday experiences; it is clearly evident that most often; Muslims who befriend with Non-Muslims; imitate and emulate them, compromising their distinct identity and religion. So called liberal/secularist/modernist Muslim even talk in their language, temerariously criticizing Islam, Qura’an and the Prophet (PBUH). It has therefore been sternly warned that such people cut off any bond with Allah (SWT), for they become one of them (disbelievers)          (Q, 3:28).

Allah (SWT) in Qura’an, used the word “Zalimun” instead of “Kafiroon”; Likely widening the scope, to include such people.  Allah therefore clearly forbids a true Muslim from keeping the company of not only the Non-Muslims but also of those, acting like them. It has been said in (Q, 6:70) that “unbelievers; are the people, who have been detained in the punishment of their evil deeds”. Which is further articulated in verse (Q, 47:15) by declaring that “their entrails will be shattered apart” (due to drinking boiling water as the punishment for their denial and disbelief). This verse also informs that their disbelief is harmful to those who like to sit in their company hence would be caught up in the same punishment as the disbelievers. (Ma’araful Qura’an Pg. 393, vol 3). As the wrong environment affects its surrounding so does the bad company by pushing human beings into the abyss of sinfulness. “This is how Allah (SWT) brings disgrace, damnation upon those who do not believe, for their hearts are not open for the truth but dash for the evil”. (Q, 6:125).



Several verses, with varying shades of meanings, against the FRIENDSHIP WITH NON-MUSLIMS are presented in the Holy Qura’an. Some of which are:-


 One should not pick and choose a verse to present his/her own (skewed) point of view instead a collective outcome, of all the verses on the topic, should be the one guiding and binding. (Q, 2: 85 & 4: 150)


Allah’s enemy is your enemy.

“O those who believe do not take my enemy and your enemy as friends having love for them and whosoever from among you do that have gone astray” (Q, 60:1)

 A friend with them is one of them.

“O those who believe do not take Jews or Christian as friends, for they are friends among themselves. And whosoever has friendship with them is one of them” (Q, 5:51)

 Believers shouldn’t befriend with unbelievers, even if kinfolk.

“You shall not find those who believe in Allah and in the hereafter having friendship with those who have enmity with Allah and His Messenger, even though they may be their fathers or sons or brothers or members of their tribes” (Q, 58:22)


Feeling honored/proud by having Non-believers as friend

Those, who take disbelievers as their allies instead of the believers, Do they seek with them honor {through power}? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah (SWT) entirely. (Q, 4:139)


Sitting in the company of Non-believers

And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah (SWT) (recited), they are denied (by them) and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation. Indeed you would then be like them. Indeed Allah (SWT) will gather the hypocrites and disbelievers in Hell all together, (Q, 4:140)


The only friends

Your friends can only be Allah (SWT), His Prophet (PBUH) and those who believe” (Q, 5:55)


Social interaction with Non-Muslims, for clear understanding and exercising due restraint, has been described, under four (4) categories.

Mawalat. (Affairs of the Heart) –For Allah knows what is in your hearts–(3:29) (Relations involving Love or Emotional attachment).

This is specifically What all these verses vehemently prevent a Muslim from.


Psychological reasoning

 Need to belong

According to the hierarchy of needs, humans need to feel love (sexual/non-sexual) and acceptance from others. In fact, the need to belong is so innately ingrained that it may be strong enough to overcome physiological, safety needs, as well as religious restraints, such as children’s attachment to abusive parents or staying in abusive romantic relationships or a Muslim woman marrying a Non-Muslim man. Such examples illustrate the extent to which the psychobiological drive to belong is entrenched hence harmful (one may, therefore, appreciate the rationale and vehemence with which Islam prohibits such a bond between the two with clashing/contradicting religious beliefs.


 Attachment Theory

Social acts that reinforce feelings of attachment also stimulate the release of neurotransmitters such as oxytocin and endorphin, which alleviate stress and create feelings of contentment. Such contentment, however, may prove to be fleeting due to ingrained religious disparity and even if it is fictitiously presumed to be there, in the beginning, may evade soon.


Prophetic injunctions

Apart from the above cited psychological reasons, there is a logically reasoned Injunction issued by the Prophet (PBUH) which lays the ground rules for an association (particularly the marriage as any other type of association is out of the question in Islam).


In Islam, there is a concept of “Kuf” which means —equal, alike or matching. Under this Principal, there are two sub clauses which need to be considered when accepting/rejecting the marriage proposals. (or contemplating an association for that matter).


These are “Lineal Homogeneity” & “Familial Homogeneity” Prophet has instructed that girls should be married in their”Kuf” which means—equality(compatibility)—rather than equalness. The likeness of spouses in their religion is incumbent and necessary for the validity of the marriage. The marriage of a Muslim girl with a disbeliever is not valid; even if the girl agrees to it. (So is not the interpersonal relationship). (religio-legal verdict—hukme-tashriee).

 The rationale here is that it is not simply the matter of “right of woman”; which may be dropped at her pleasure, Instead, it is the “right of God” –a Divine- injunction, under the clause of Familial Homogeneity. 

 A question or doubt may be raised about the whole religio-legal-verdict stated above. The validity of it has very eloquently and in unequivocal terms been stated in Qur’an as– “Prophet has more right to men and women of his (Ummah) community than their own selves” and also that “And it becomes not a believing man or woman, when Allah and His prophet have decided an affair (for them) that they should claim any “say” in that matter”      Surah Al Ahzab 33, V 6 & 36

 Finally, Allah forbade such relationship in categorical terms in Surah “Mumtahinah”–(She who is examined) #60, V – 10–in the following words “Neither these (Muslim women) are lawful for them, Nor are those (unbelievers) lawful for these (believing) women” All such relationships which existed at the time of revelation of this verse were ipso-facto severed.

 Muwasat. (Concern)

Non-Muslims ought to be dealt with favor, generosity, compassion, sympathy, and concern. It also includes charitable help and support, condolence, consolation or any other well-intentioned attitude of wishing them well.  Confirmed in the following verse:

“Allah does not forbid you from treating those, who have not fought with you because of your faith, nor have they driven you out of your homes, with benevolence and equity” (Q, 60:8)

 Mudarat. (Cordiality)

This category of dealings involves customary cordiality, adequacy in courtesy, pleasant and mannerly politeness.

Muamalat. (Dealings)

This category involves things such as employment, wages, industry, technology, business dealings, benevolence, and human-interests.  

Note: Most of the permissible interactions, however, would become impermissible if it becomes harmful to the interest of the general body of Muslims such as arms sales to a group fighting against Muslims.(war situation exemptions to older folks, Non belligerent folks, children, religious folks(priests/monks etc), places of worship, livestock and crops/orchards etc nevertheless, would apply).


An exception; under the category of MAWALAT; where there is a severe threat to one’ life or overarching-interest, is allowed. “Unless you guard yourselves against an apprehension from them” in such a case an (outwardly) expression of affection and love is permissible (Q, 3:28). This position is also supported by the Hadith, “Allah (SWT) has forgiven my people from, mistakes, forgetfulness, and acts done under compulsion/duress” (*1)

 Concealment of feelings of affection and love for Non-believers                           (Do not incline towards unjust, lest Hell fire catches you) (Q, 11:113)

At times it happens that people emotionally attached to Non-Muslims verbally deny it in the presence of fellow Muslims. Such people have been warned by Allah in the following words, “whether you conceal what is in your heart or disclose it, Allah knows it” (Q, 3:29)

 A superficial look at the inhibitive verses might generate an intolerant view of Islam which is dispelled in various verses of the Holy Qura’an, Ahadith, Sunnah and the dealings of the revered Companions.

 How Prophet (PBUH), Sahabah & Khulafa’a dealt with Non-Muslims?


Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), at the time of famine in Mecca, personally went out to help his enemies who drove him out of Mecca earlier.

Then after the conquest of Mecca, he gave general amnesty to all those who fought against him.

Caliph Umer Farooq allowed stipends and allowance to needy Non-Muslims living under his rule.

 An Obvious question, however, may arise here, why Allah (SWT) has warned against the friendship with Non-Muslims so sternly?

The answer is given through a Qura’anic verse and a Hadith (Bukhari and Muslim).  “My Prayer, my sacrifice, my life, my death all are for Allah, the Lord of the worlds” (Q. 6:162) Prophet (PBUH) has been reported to have said “Whoever loves for the sake of Allah (SWT) and whoever hates for the sake of Allah (SWT), has perfected his faith”(*2) It means that Iman/Faith remains incomplete unless a Muslim’s love, friendship, hate and enmity all are subordinated to Allah Almighty. That is why at the end of verse 3:28, for the ones who defy this injunction, it is said that “you are one of them”.

The premise on which the edifice of—“No-intimate relationship with Non-Believers”— is based is the primal purport of the temporal life of a Muslim.

The primal-purport of a Muslim’s life is to remember and serve Allah (SWT). Everything else including all affairs of life, politics, business, Government and social relationships ought to be subservient to this primal purport.


(Allah (SWT) therefore has strongly forbidden an intimate friendship/relationship with any Nonbelievers under any circumstances).

*1–An-Nawawi’s Hadith No.39 (On the authority of Ibn Abbas). A  Hasan (fair)  Hadith related by Ibn Majah, Al-Baihaqi and others.

*2–Sunan Abu Dawud 4681, Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani.



It is hoped that this treatise would help men and women of understanding in tackling the endemic of the entrenched interpersonal relationship between Muslims and Non-Muslims with Divine guidance; provided through Qura’an and Hadith, while applying human logic and reasoning as well rather than succumbing to the reflexes of sentimentality.

Note:        An abridged form of this topic.


%d bloggers like this: