Posts Tagged ‘Qura”an’

Disavowing or Disowning a Wrong

December 2, 2015


In an individual’s life come several occasions where one hears or sees something untrue, repugnant or altogether false. Most often, a person despite cognitive consonance may get perturbed for his inability to correct, address, refute such a situation due to some, religious, social, familial or political correctness constraints. Such a situation was faced by Prophet Abraham (Ibrahim A.S) when he saw his father, relatives and people of his tribe worshiping false gods. He, despite having explained to them; that they are worshiping wrong god, did not feel satisfied therefore, vehemently and openly declared in their presence that “I free myself (absolve) from what you are worshipping” (Surah Zukhruf 43 V26).


The lesson to be learnt here is; that when someone is living in the company of disbelievers, or those who are habituated of doing wrongful acts, or those who out of sheer ignorance, misconstrue the religious injunctions, or altogether distort to justify their own lapses or that of someone else’s  should not be allowed to get a free-pass. In such a situation any person not raising the voice of concern may inevitably become part of that distortion and resultant sinfulness. In the light of this Qura’anic verse; uttered by Prophet Abraham (Ibrahim A.S) it could be inferred that keeping quiet, ignoring such an injustice/distortion or just being concerned with one’s own good deeds only is not enough.


It is not enough, that one should keep his own deeds and faith on the right track but also declare his disapproval, disavowal in suitable yet distinctly categorical terms.


This view could be corroborated by the Hadith whereby prophet (pbuh) instructed to “stop the one doing wrong with HANDS, TONGUE or the least, THINK of his act as bad act (this being the weakest degree of faith)”  Disapproval, disavowal of bad deeds categorically (even if verbally) would have twofold effect. 1) He would not become part of the sin simply by association or acquiescence. 2) Wrongdoer might heed and change his way—-which would entail immense blessings. This Qura’anic Ayah also corroborates the contemporary saying—–Be part of the solution and not of the problem”


NOTE–(Disapproval, disavowal does not mean, in any form or shape, to resorting to violence or Foisting of one’s opinion on others)





May GOD be dispensed with ?

November 25, 2015

BThree Faiths One God compos

The idea of Supreme-Being suggests a continuum of non local intelligence, permeating space and time. This is however, in contrast with Newtonian view of a perceptive tissues locked inside the skull. The mystical scriptures of religions express the idea of a single underlying reality embodied in a Supreme Being (GOD), the absolute self. We however, delude ourselves with the thought that we know much about the science and materiality and so overestimate material (in the sense of physical/evidentiary/empirical) causation and believe that it alone can affords us a true explanation of life. Materiality, on the other hand, is as inscrutable as non-materiality. As to the ultimate thing we can know nothing, and only when we admit this, do we return to state of sensibility. Nature will reveal anything we are capable enough to handle and clever enough to seek sincerely. From materialistic point of view, the life is supernatural and from life’s point of view, mind’s realm is supernatural. Higher in these invariably permeates and influences the lower as if to perpetrate a miraculous—Divine–intervention. A Divine Order and command over the universe of matter, life and mind. Acknowledging this Order is EXACTLY the faith in UNSEEN.


The idea of world as an organism has been called “Gaia Hypothesis”—named after mythical Greek goddess of earth. Mass consciousness effects suggest that there is a mind of Gaia. Individual neurons in a brain would find it hard to believe, that they are participating in a complex dance called “mass consciousness”, which affects the mind of Gaia. Similarly individuals participating, through life activities, in a complex dance affect the mind of God. God affirmed this in Qura’an, “I am what My slaves perceive/imagine Me as”


Evidence of Existence of God

There is a small segment of society which not only disbelieves in God but refutes Him too. Some go to the extent of, I guess out of spite, declaring His non existence. In this treatise therefore, a wide range of avenues are explored to reach a tenable proclamation justifying His existence for, an overwhelming majority of human-race, one way or other believes in God.


Traditional theosophy presents three well recognized modes/arguments for God’s existence.


1) Cosmological   2) Teleological   3) Ontological


  • Cosmological-a

Dependent character of the universe argument concludes that a necessary, self subsistent, being must exist. Reason being that everything that moves in the universe needs a mover. Every effect needs a cause—there exists a chain of observable causes at the end of which has to be a–principal–unmoved mover, an uncaused cause, by necessity–In absence whereof this universe would have been reduced to inexplicable and unintelligible.



Existence of physical/material universe; logically demands for a being, which is not just possible but “Necessary” to provide a ground and basis for its being—-That necessary being is God. (Contingency Doctrine)


First cosmological argument establishes that chronologically God pre-existed the universe as its “efficient Cause” Second argument established that God is Logically-prior reason of which universe is a “consequent” (popular philosophical arguments)


Both arguments put together compel us to acknowledge the God’s existence.

                   2) Teleological

Teleological argument or the design argument lays emphasis on Order, Harmony leading to Beauty and then moving onto Meaning and Purpose in creation. This sequential inter-dependent order in the creation demands of a conscious and intelligent being whose thoughts are being actualized with such a fine perfection.


Alternatively, if forms are analyzed from graduated or hierarchical scale of excellence, it would also demand a highest form/degree of perfection on the top to permeate to lesser degrees/forms to exist. Since everything is caused by the First cause, it must be par excellence (immaterial & uncaused).



        3) Ontological

Ontological argument proves the existence of God from the very basis of “perfection”

Since non existence is a sort of imperfection, therefore the “perfect Being—God” must necessarily exist.


Few more avenues are explored, which unwaveringly, leading to God’s Existence.



                    4) Law of causality

Universe was created in time. Time therefore, was created before the universe. The law of causality demands that what is created must, by necessity, have its Cause/Creator.

In Islamic parlance creation of time is crucial. It bifurcate the process in different categories. TAKWEEN (before the creation of time) –All the rules, physical, metaphysical were set and documented in Sacred Preserved Tablet (with God). This mode of Creation is sparingly used.  CREATION (after the creation of time)—this mode is continuous.


  •             5) Principle of Determination

Prior to the existence of the universe it was equally possible that it started existing (in the mind of its Creator-as “thought”) as Non-Entity. God being it’s determining principle—with respect to when to actualize it into form and with what governing rules.


  •                6) Priori Knowledge of God

I would consider belief in God as priori, and non empirical idea. Because I think experience here refers to the idea of measurement, and so the capacity of meditation as posteriori source, dependents on the idea that consciousness acts as a receptacle for information that cannot be taken in with any form through the senses—which is a priori claim. Therefore necessarily the proposition of God coming from mind must be founded on priori and non empirical statement. (Some may argue, this is true of all knowledge. maybe. But the case is more direct here).

  •                   7) Posteriori knowledge of God

Existence of God, I have had one of those experiences, which could also be classified as “God feelings” instead of knowledge of existence of God. (Depending on how the knowledge of “God” is defined) In any case, I think the term “Belief” is more appropriate here than the “knowledge” if we accept this, then this is a straightforward example of a posteriori belief. The belief has been predicated upon the experience. We can keep the term knowledge if we simplify the initial claim to be knowledge of profound and ineffable spiritual feelings rather than knowledge of the existence of God. The latter is a little dodgy, but no one will deny that the former constitute truly valid knowledge, albeit of the subjective kind. So here too we have a posteriori, in this case posteriori knowledge of spiritual experience. No one knows what the spiritual experience truly is until,–one experiences it—a clear cut example of a posteriori knowledge.



  •                             8) Public (reasoning) Justification for knowledge of God

Existence of God could also be demonstrated through public (reasoning for cognition of the knowledge of God). The justification will be presented on the lines of established “CONSENT   THEORIES” of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau; who developed “Consent theories of legitimacy”, but these three theorists seemed to oscillate between an empirical standard of consent and something deeper, a normative standard of consent. On the empirical account, we have public justification for (God feelings) knowledge of God which an individual experiences and actually believes, desires, and values as tangible effectuation (transitioning from psychological/emotional to physical comfort on a consistent basis) cementing further his conviction for the knowledge (existence) of God. On the normative account, we have public justification for (God feelings) knowledge of God Which an individual experiences and ideally believes, desires, and values as tangible effectuation (transitioning from psychological/emotional to physical comfort on consistent basis) Cementing further his conviction for the Knowledge (existence) of God. In the latter case, they sometimes speak of hypothetical consent (For familial or community reasons) One reason these theorists may have had for transitioning from actual to hypothetical consent is that they hoped to identify a rational justification of a “religious order” consequent upon “knowledge of existence of God” which, in the absence of an absolute and all encompassing acceptance by any given community, is hoped to enjoy widespread support within the relevant community — imagining public possessing superior information and cognitive abilities (delineated above) despite their diverse interests and reasons, still have conviction to comply with revealed knowledge of God even if this adherence did not permit them to act as they would like to.


(Note: The mechanism of “CONSENT THEORY” developed by the named scholars has been adapted and applied to religious institution–consequent upon Knowledge of God—instead-Author).



  •                                    9) Empirical evidence

Evidence——Everything is evidence which the historian can use as evidence. But what can he so use? It must be something here and now perceptible  empirical connotation that ‘reason to believe’ lacks: it sounds more natural, at least to some ears, to describe a priori philosophical considerations as reasons to believe some philosophical thesis.


Charles Sanders Peirce—Mixed empiricism and rationalism.


Whatever we find in the intellect is also incipiently present in sense.

Charles Peirce (1839–1914) was highly influential in laying the groundwork for today’s empirical scientific method Although Peirce severely criticized many elements of Descartes’ peculiar brand of rationalism, he did not reject rationalism outright. Indeed, he concurred with the main ideas of rationalism, most importantly the idea that rational concepts can be meaningful and the idea that rational concepts necessarily go beyond the data given by empirical observation. In later years he even emphasized the concept-driven side of the then ongoing debate between strict empiricism and strict rationalism, in part to counterbalance the excesses to which some of his cohorts had taken pragmatism under the “data-driven” strict-empiricist view.


As a result of greater familiarity with scientific and empirical deduction, the human mind tends naturally to shy away somewhat from purely intellectual deduction, particularly if the matter under investigation is non-material and insensible


Since the specialists in the empirical sciences devote all their mental energy to the sensory sciences, they are alien to matters that lie beyond sense perception. One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one’s thought to the logic of the empirical sciences and to fail to recognize the limits and boundaries of that logic. This alienation, this distance from non-sensory matters, this extraordinary trust in the data yielded by the empirical sciences, reaches such a point that testing and experimentation forms the whole mental structure and world view of such specialists. They regard experimentation as the only acceptable tool and means of cognition, as the sole criterion. They expect it to solve every problem.

The function of the sciences is to explain the relationships between phenomena; their aim is to establish the connection between events, not between God and events. In the experimental sciences, man is not at all concerned with God. One should not expect to be able to perceive supra-sensory realities by means of sensory criteria, or to see God in a laboratory. The sciences cannot carry out a laboratory experiment on the existence of God and then reach the verdict that if a thing is not physically observable and it cannot be established by means of laboratory experiment and mathematical calculation, it does not exist.


                      10) Denying God, Denying Reality

Does God exist? This is the question being constantly raised by Atheist. The question is often put forward in different guises but the premise is always the same; does God exist and what evidence (PROOF) is there to support this belief? In fact, I would argue that we don’t need any evidence of His existence. So the question itself needs debating.  It shouldn’t actually be “does God exist?”, but rather “what reasons do you have to reject His existence?”

God is an axiomatic belief. In other words, God’s existence is self-evidently true. In the language of philosophy it is also known as “Basic-Belief”. The idea of self-evident truths is accepted by all. Take science for example: science takes the world’s reality as a self-evident truth; it believes that the world is real. In other words, the physical world is separate and external from our minds and our thoughts.

An Innate Belief: Properly basic beliefs, axiomatic beliefs, and self-evident truths, do not require information transfer.  For me to understand what a spaghetti monster is, I require information to be transferred to me. For example, I require knowledge of western cuisine and Italian culture. But when it comes to the idea of God’s existence as the creator of the universe, you do not require any information transfer, whether from culture, or education. This is why sociologists and anthropologists argue that even if atheist children were stranded on a desert island, they would come to believe that something created the desert island. Self-evident truths do not have to be universal: Self-evident truths, basic beliefs or axioms can be individualized and do not have to have universal appeal.



  •                                          11) Principle of Oneness

There are two kinds of Oneness we are conversant with (a) Number one and also (b) reference to characteristic of Simplicity.  In the first case it applies to the worldly objects as well as to God, whereas in the later it applies ONLY to God; since any singularity (oneness) referred to, other than that of God, would be composite until reduced to an absolute singular.  It could, therefore, logically be argued that that “ONENESS” is inevitable for the creation of the universe. Hence that inevitably indivisible ONENESS is GOD.


There are numerous Muslims scholars who have expounded on the subject. Few most prominent ones are; Al kindi, Ibn Tufail, Ibn Sina, Abu Rushd, and Farabi..


Abu Rushd was an eminent Spanish Muslim scholar known in the West as (Averroes) mostly for his Islamic-legal work, He also tried to establish the belief in the existence of God and His attributes, through Qura’anic approach, by presenting various point of views within Islam. Few are presented here in brief.



Thought God is known through reason. Abu Rushd agreed but did not agree with their dialectical approach rather than philosophical. Asha’rites based this on several presuppositions. —world is temporal, bodies are composite of atoms, God neither eternal nor temporal and so on.



According to Abu Rushd

Qura’an recommends two rational philosophical ways to God.


Teleologicalthrough proof of providence everything in the universe has been created for the benefit and service to human being. Therefore the way universe has been organized and planned necessitates that there be a willful planner/designer of this universe, with a purpose of service to human being. That designer/planner is God.


CosmologicalThrough proof of Creation If something comes to life out of nothing or something lifeless is endowed with life suddenly that would necessitate a Creator i.e God.


Sufi, on the other hand, hold that mystical experience is the only method through which God can be recognized. This experience however, needs an extensive exercise in self discipline for its eventualization. It also draws heavily on the grace of almighty God. Thus it becomes the prerogatives of the selected few. Qura’an being the book of guidance for all would not therefore, recommend Sufi way for the understanding of divine existence in general.



The belief in God is universal: In spite of the number of atheists in the world, the belief in God is universal. A universal belief does not mean every single person on the planet must believe in it. A cross cultural consensus is enough evidence to substantiate the claim that God’s existence is a universal claim. Evidently there are more theists than atheists in the world, and this has always been the case from the beginning of recorded history and most likely will always be.


Atheistic fallacy proven by Godel’s incompleteness theorem

In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed. Gödel’s discovery not only applied to mathematics but literally to everything, to all branches of science, logic, math, language, philosophy and human knowledge. It has truly earth-shattering implications. And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe.

OK, so what does this really mean? Why is this super-important, and not just an interesting geek factoid?

  • Faith and Reason are not enemies.In fact, the exact opposite is true. One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
  • All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
  • You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
  • It cannot be PROVED that gravity will always be consistent at all times. It can only be observed that it’s consistently true every time. It cannot be proved that the universe is rational. It can only be observed that mathematical formulas like E=MC^2 do seem to perfectly describe what the universe does. It also can’t be proved that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either. It literally has to be taken on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that could not be scientifically proven. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, but only infer. (Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws.)
  • Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe.(If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too) There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but can not prove) will give you the right answer every time.)
  • The universe(all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it. If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause,because you can always draw a circle around an effect.
  • In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information,some 3.5 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial
  • The information appears to have come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time
  • All codes we know the origin of are designedby conscious beings.
  • Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.
  • In breaking the deadlock between Darwin and Design and exploring the question of origin of information in depth, we add the information to the equation, we therefore conclude that not only is the thing outside the biggest circle infinite, immaterial but also conscious.
  • Isn’t it interesting how all these things sound suspiciously similar to how theologians have described God for thousands of years?
  • So it’s hardly surprising that 80-90% of the people in the world believe in some concept of God. Yes, it’s intuitive to most folks. But Gödel’s theorem indicates it’s also supremely logical. In fact it’s the only position one can take and stay in the realm of reason and logic.
  • The person who proudly proclaims, “You’re a man of faith, but I’m a man of science” doesn’t understand the roots of science or the nature of knowledge!
  • That high school geometry book is built on Euclid’s five postulates. Everyone knows the postulates are true, but in 2500 years nobody’s figured out a way to prove them.
  • Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.
  • Thus faith and science are not enemies, but allies. It’s been true for hundreds of years, but in 1931 this skinny young Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved
  • Godels two theorem acknowledges another concept of “Dualism” in the Creation. It is confirmed in Qura’an that everything has been created in pairs Even Muslim Article of faith starts by confirming this concept—“There is God but no god” Likewise matter and anti matter, However since matter is fractionally more than the anti-matter, therefore pervades.(adapted by the author as addendum to Godel’s theorem).
  • No time in the history of mankind has faith in “God” been more reasonable, more logical, or more thoroughly supported by science and mathematics.
  • Assumption to the contrary?

The mainstream secularization thesis states that as societies become more modernized, the authority and influence of religious beliefs and institutions will eventually disappear from public life and will only be relevant to individuals on a private level, if at all. As William Swatos, Jr and Kevin Christiano (2) argue.* (adapted as addendum to the Godel’s theore by the author)


Faith in the “unseen” is man’s conviction that there is an order of existence beyond the visible order which we confront here and now, a metaphysical, supernatural order that is seriously to be reckoned with.

Qura’an recognizes iman bil ghaib (Faith in the Unseen) as the source and ground of man’s conviction in the Ultimate Existence. In order to achieve the awareness of metaphysical realities Faith in the Unseen must preside over all recognized sources of knowledge although they are relevant in their own ways and capacities.

Mystics, as a consequence of their efforts towards the purification of soul and concentration on the Might and Majesty of God achieve an “I- Thou” encounter with Him. This is living assurance of His existence leaving absolutely no room for doubt or misgiving. This “I-Thou” experience becomes objectivized  “I” subsumes “Thou” and “Thou”— Yazid Bastami (famous mystic)  declares— “I am the Reality”  Since God sys  “I become his (the seeker’s) hearing, his seeing, his hands, his feet—so much so whatever he does, does through me. ( Hadith Qudsi)


August 11, 2015

3 in one

Berlin thinks it is making religious history as Muslims, Jews and Christians join hands to build a place where they can all worship. The House of One, as it is being called, will be a synagogue, a church and a mosque under one roof.

Why Muslim believe in all three religions, Prophets and Books?


“We ordained for you that religion which, We commanded unto Noah, and that which We inspired in you (O Mohammad), and that which, We commanded unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus saying establish the religion, and be not divided therein”. (Surah Counsel 42, V-13)

“Unto this (very religion), then, summon (O Mohammad) and be upright as you are commanded, and follow not their lusts, by saying: I believe in whatever Scripture God has sent down. And I am commanded to be just among you. God is our Lord and your Lordunto us our work and unto you your work. No argument between us and you. God will bring us together and Unto Him is the journeying” (Surah Counsel 42, V-15)

All three Divine religions were sent down by the very same God and there is intrinsically and thematically (monotheism) no difference in them except, in ancillary practices (Sharia’ahs) of the Prophets. “For each (of you) We have appointed a Divine Law and a traced out way” (Surah Ma’aeda 5, V-48)


It names Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad, which means that His message since Adam till now is the same and has not changed with any of the Prophets. There however had been a difference in the practices of the prophets—called Sharia’ahs. There is consensus of religious scholars that no deviation occurred from the time of Prophet Adam till Noah.


  • Be not divided thereinmeans do not discriminate between the religions since all are divine in their origin and their adherents were truly obedient to GodDeviation and dissensionstarted from the time of Prophet Noah onward.
  • 2) Lust here is in the sense of deviation or dissention, desires or whims.
  • 3) Unto us our work and unto you your work—means you are responsible for your deeds and we are responsible for ours. We all shall gather unto God andHe is the final arbiter.
  • I am commanded to be just among you—one of the meanings of this sentence interpreted by exegetes is that—-The Prophet Mohammad has to obey all the Divine Laws, treat all the commands of religions equally by believing in all the Prophets and in their Books without any exceptions.


That is why it is incumbent upon and compulsory for Muslims to believe in all three religions as Divine, All Prophets and their Books. It also dispels the misunderstanding, as to why there are similarities in Torah, Bible and Qura’an. Some ignorant even go to the extreme, accusing that Qura’an is a copy of some earlier scriptures or Books.

There arises an obvious question, then why all these books are needed? The answer is that earlier books had been grossly interpolated (altered) making the original text extinct. According to Christian Historical perspectives, Bible was compiled anew, through memory bank of Christian priests/monks, 200 years after the ascension (Crucifixion in Christian terms) of Jesus Christ. That is how Christianity ended up having four or more versions of Bible. All 4 prominent disciples of Jesus Christ compiled their own version of Bible through their own sources. Technically it can’t even be called “BIBLE” Qura’an in any form other than the Arabic text does not technically meet the threshold of being called Qura’an. Qura’an with Arabic text, on the other hand, is the divinely preserved final Book of revelations. There has not been any change in its original text since the time of it descended.

There was a gap of about 500 years between Jesus Christ and Prophet Mohammad. Original Bible and Torah had already gone extinct even before Prophet Mohammad’s period. Fewer true Jews and Christians were left. Prophet Mohammad, as ordered, invited them to embrace Islam as the true and final religion. Some did, but others did not—as religion has always been a very sensitive matter—- hence we have an ongoing clash of egos on our hands till the end of the time. God guide us all and forgive us too. (Peace Be Upon all Prophets).

Note:-No criticism or disrespect is intended through this essay in any way or sense. Its purpose rather is to educate and inform people across the board.

God-Guarded sanctity of Qura’an

July 29, 2015


“Lo! Those who distort our revelations are not hid from us. Is he who is hurled into the fire better, or he who comes out secure on the day of resurrection? Do what you will. Lo! He is seer of what you do.     Say to them—for those who believe it is guidance and healing—-and for those who disbelieve, there is deafness in their ear and it is blindness for them. Such are (those who are) called to from afar” (customarily unable to comprehend)                                      (Surah Sajda 41, V 40 & 44)

In Qura’an and Hadith terminology the Arabic word used—ILHAD—means to deviate from the verse (meaning) of the Qura’an.  Lexically this word means –deviation, open denial, misinterpretation distortion in essence. (Particularly when apparently there exists an impression of belief–expressed or implied—but attributing self assumed misleading meaning—or the use of the meaning in irrelevant places; just to prove one’s point. (In contravention of the recognized and accepted meanings and use of the verse) It falls in the category of hypocritical Kufr. (infidelity)

Further is it declared that Qura’an is protected by God hence, is unassailable, God holds this book very dear and no falsehood can enter it. (V-41)     In Surah Hijr # 9 it is said “It is We, even We, who revealed the Qura’an and it is We, who will protect it”

Establishing prayer (Aqamatus-Salaah)

March 5, 2015

Prayers stop one from sins.  What encompasses–Zikr Allah (remembrance)

We Muslims repeatedly use this word—Aqamatus-Salaah—-in everyday life. I would, therefore, try to explain, in the light of Qura’an and Sunnah, what it really means. In the second line of the caption, there are two additional concepts/questions, which emerge as an organic or logical consequence of prayer. These would also be explained to make the concept of establishment of prayer comprehensively understood and benefitting. These explanations would also clear some misconception developed by repeatedly reading in-part text of the Holy Qura’an—-which though with accurate translation—do not convey full understanding due to fragmentation.                                         Thus misconception/wrong understanding gets developed.(such as, Prayer stops one from sins).


Establishing the prayer

By employing all manners and mores, inwardly and outwardly, exactly the way Prophet did. Isolating one from all worldly thoughts and affairs while standing before Allah (SWT) in perfect veneration, nothing in between the one praying and his/her Lord, addressing Him directly (without any medium).

Outwardly mores:-Cleanliness of body, clothes, place of offering the prayer and in-congregation.

Inwardly mores:-Standing in fear of Allah, with humility* in a manner as if begging from Him.

Those who establish prayers in this fashion Allah may grace them with treading the right path.

Prayers performed without full etiquette observed would, according to juristic rulings, be considered permissible but short of being established. The blessings, therefore, would also be reduced proportionately or may even be lost completely.


Question-What if someone, despite praying accordingly, may not tread the right path?

In this regard there are two ahadith and one saying of Ibn-Abbas (R.A); which are elucidations of Surah Al Ankabut, verse 45 of Qura’an “”Innis salata tanha anil fahshae wal munkare…….””  Prophet (PBUH) in hadith 1-said—if prayer does not stop one from sins his prayer is nothing. In hadith 2-said—it is the obedience of the prayer which keeps one from sins. In Saying 3-Ibn- Abbas (R.A) said—if one’s prayer does not stop from sins would push him rather farther from Allah.


These explanations point to the fact that prayers offered have a flaw(s)—for not being effective—which need to be addressed. (All requisite conditions must be fulfilled for one to reap the benefits).

Prayer does forbid from sins and shamelessness but people do not take up the advice earnestly, hence the prayer remains from being properly—ESTABLISHED.

Best described in a Hadith,

“when the sweetness of Iman get settles in one’s heart then all parts of his body start relishing its taste in the acts of worship”

Qura’an and Ahadith, in a similar way, forbid one from sins and shamelessness yet everyone do not take the advice earnestly, therefore, continue committing sins. The reason for this anomaly is that the verse cited above is not of an injunctive but of an advisory character.                    Therefore for Qura’an, Ahadith and Prayer to be effective not only the required conditions have to be met, but also with the grace and will of Allah, one may get rid of sins and shamelessness. Insha-Allah.  


Zikr (remembrance) of Allah

Verse 45 also reads:-Wala zikrullaho akbaro wallaho ya’alamo ma tasnaoon? –It means:-and indeed remembrance of Allah is the greatest, and Allah knows what you do. It could also be said that the remembrance, including prayers, is the greatest. Another sense may also prevail, as elucidated in another verse (2:152) Faz kurooni Az kur kum—-which means—remember me I will remember you–a Huge favor by Allah—witnessed by angels. In the light of the above verses, it can safely be deduced that abstinence from sins and shamelessness, as a consequence of prayers or otherwise remembrance while complying with inwardly and outwardly mores and manners is yet

Contingent upon the will and grace along-with auspiciousness (a huge favor showered) of Allah.

To sum up there are 3 constituents of a perfectly established fully-beneficial prayer.

1) Compliance with inwardly & outwardly mores and manners. 2) Grace & will of Allah.                                  3) Allah remembering you.



*Humility—here tantamount to—Khushu & Khuzu—which are important constituents desired in any Ibadah—BUT—are not mandatory. For the simple reason that these are beyond human control and, like guidance and admittance into paradise,  are also dependent on His absolute will & grace, so could be granted to whomsoever He may.

(May Allah forgive me for any shortcomings or lapses).


Why Muslims are Shari’a averse?

February 12, 2011

Shari’a Law is based on Qura’an, Hadith, and Sunnah ( the practices and verdicts of Prophet Mohammad-PBUH); which all Muslims, regardless of sect and persuasion, are supposed to follow. Despite its canonical status in Islamic theology, there is not a single Muslim Dominated state where it is practiced in its letter and spirit. Even Saudi Arabia, which is often, erroneously, presumed a Shari’a Law state, is severely deficient in its application.

The result is that out of 54 Muslim dominated, so called Islamic states, there is not a single Islamic state practicing the Islamic Laws in its entirety. In Islamic theology, unlike Christian doctrine, there is no concept of separation of religion and State. Some countries, such as Pakistan, are deceptively running two parallel judicial systems, to pacify/suppress the criticism of the conservative segments of the societies. This segment, for political compulsions, is often, slanderously dubbed as extremists Salafis or Wahabis. These groups, in the face of negative connotations, are generally very small and lacking a cohesive strategy for the propagation of their religious doctrines.

There is an elaborate history behind this strange aversion to Shari’a by Muslims. The love-hate situation of this Islamic legal code has weathered several phases.

After the death of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), there was a blank or dark period of several hundred years. There was no work done on the collection or arrangement of the prophetic traditions (Ahadith). When it started: despite the best process employed: for sorting out the most reliable/authentic ahadith, the skepticism could not be obviated, especially among different sects of Islam, which had emerged in this period. Most of the religious division and sectarian problems stemmed from this period.

This lack of across the board acceptance of authentic Ahadith resulted in the weakening of the institution of shari’a. Ir-repairable damage was done by the division of Muslims in various sects; especially the Shia’a/Sunni; who opted to go with their own set of collection of Ahadith.

Another factor which halted the process of re-invigoration or the organic re-alignment of the religious norms (in the light of Hadith and Sunnah ) happened to be the suspension of Ijtihad (thoughtful intellectualization of the Islamic code of Law) until recently. (Though in Shi’a sect this process continued on a much smaller scale; since the Shi’a sect has always been very small in number)

A very potent propaganda against the Shari’a Law came from the Christendom. Upon deep analysis it transpires that the psychological trauma, suffered by the Christendom at the hands of Muslims, gave rise to a sense of religious and cultural inferiority; which culminated in this all out aggression against the Shari’a, the bedrock of Islamic system.

On the other hand, however, west came out of the slumber of dark-ages due to the Muslim’s splendor and enlightenment, which also challenged the core ethos of Christianity reducing them to fallacies. Muslim’s conquest of the Europe therefore, is being paid in kind.

The West, not only came up with various maligning, misleading propaganda techniques also, cunningly unsuspectingly dissuaded the Muslim elites from following the Shari’a Law.

Muslims failed, to counter these distortions from an intellectually mature standpoint, and resorted only to whining and complaining. They succumbed to these distortions due to their intellectual, educational, religious slumber, which had set in among the Muslims. Westerners, on the other hand, continued developing in educational, industrial and technological areas; which steeped Muslims further into the sense of inferiority complex. The reasons for this Muslim regressive mentality were many, few of which are elaborated below.

Morally bankrupt Muslims started taking refuge/pride in so-called modernized/westernized elitism. Devoid of piety and full of lust for worldly gains became their hallmark, It rendered them morally and spiritually weak, thus scared of harsh punishment meted out under Shari’a Law. The aversion to the Shari’a Law developed out of created fear.

Westernization, under the disguise of modernization, was adopted with regressive mentality and inferiority complex. This dark period, eras of dynastic courtships and blind loyalties; especially resulted in scuttling the organic progression of science, philosophy, ijtihad, religious and secular education. This un-naturally cultivated behavior, in contrast to natural egalitarianism, pushed the Muslims into inferiority complex and crisis of identity.

The emergence of Kamal Atta-Turk, Jamal Abdul Nasir, Mohammad Abdu and Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan, on the Muslim Horizon, is the result of this regressive, inferiority complex ridden mentality. They immensely damaged the Muslim Nation. It created two classes of the followers; one is Modern, west educated, anti-Islamic in essence. other is: oppressed, deprived, economically left out but eager and willing to follow the Shari’a Law in letter and spirit. All the deprivations made him bold and religious enough to be a die-hard follower of Shari’a law, as the only way of salvation in this world and the hereafter. He made it his article of faith and hope.

The first one, maintains a social status in society, generally laced with secular education and well resourced, but often devoid of religious education. This so called Elite, Westernized/Modernized class exhibits avid reluctance, doubt, disregard, and in some instances outright rejection, of this Islamic Code of Law. This class looks down upon religious education and people despite being proud of calling themselves Muslim. A Crisis of Identity, double standard and hypocritical stance.

West has successfully created a parallel man-made code of justice, which is in stark contradiction and negation of Divine justice.

The distinction between the two codes is that the former is devoid of compassion. It seeks out the proof of fault to punish. The Divine justice, on the contrary, exhausts all possible means to give the benefit of the doubt to forgive and the punishment is rendered, as a last resort, in absolute situations when there is no shade of doubt left. For example, in the case of adultery, there is a mandatory requirement of four witnesses; which in normal circumstances is almost impossible to present. In the case of a killing, the litigation under Shari’a Law, is between the killer and the relatives of the victim. If the relatives of the victim forgive the killer there is no punishment awarded.

Under the Man-made Law, however even if the relatives of the victim forgives, the State will not absolve the killer of the crime and he/she would yet be punished. (That is probably why man-made Law is called Blind; since its application is mechanical instead of humane and compassionate)

The point here is that the propaganda of inhumane, harsh punishments rendered under the shari’a law is absolutely out of place and misleading. I will end this piece with one narrative. In the time of one of the four companions of Prophet Mohammad, someone was caught stealing and held liable for severance of one of his hands. The Punishment could not be carried out, as the ruler of the time (the companion of the Prophet) failed to provide the opportunities which would have prevented the compulsion of stealing. The ruler instead was held liable for the circumstances and the punishment was rescinded.…/…/10/disjunctive-sequel-2/
















%d bloggers like this: