[Intro:]

Intro: A reviewer asked: “I am confused about the practicality of the evidence of the four witnesses in adultery; do you think that the countries like Yemen, Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia would stick to finding such high quality evidence? God does not require witnesses when we commit other sins, then why does He require witnesses when we commit adultery. And why to worry about sins, punishments and evidences when we could get salvaged whatever sin we commit? It is in the Bible and is the older scripture than Qur’an.”

Reply:
The Historical Facts: I agree with you that Bible is an older scripture than Qur’an. So what? Several holy books were revealed before Bible and are older than Bible. The fact is that they were all Draft copies from the same author (God) who wrote His Master copy The Qur’an. The fact is that all Draft copies got adulterated with time; Bible has 7 major alterations done to it since its first edition some 400 years after the death of Jesus Christ (PBUH). Qur’an was revealed 1400 years ago and not a dot or dash has been altered ever since.

You said: “why to worry about sins, punishments and evidences when we could get salvation for whatever sin we commit? It is in the Bible.” I am sorry you are wrong, it is not in the Bible; clergies in Christianity tell baloneys like Ullamahs in Islam tell baloneys. The fact is that The Hebrew Bible, The New Testament and The Qur’an, all three holy books from the same author (God) give one message loud and clear: WHATEVER YOU SOW YOU SHALL REAP and God has put in place His ‘Sin Evaluation and Punishment Dispensing System’ to make sure that: WHATEVER WE SOW WE SHALL REAP.

God’s Sin Evaluation and Punishment Dispensing System: There are several sins in Islam that we commit everyday like stealing, gambling, drinking, not praying, not fasting, etc. for which God will judge and punish us on the day of the judgement; however, for those sins that cause mischief in the society and need urgent attention like adultery and murder, He has allowed the worldly system to judge and punish us and has given us guide lines to help us implement it. For adultery for example, He has chosen reliable evidence as a guideline of crucial importance.

The evidence for adultery must not be circumstantial it must be direct and 4 reliable witnesses must have seen the adultery act (act of penetration) actually taken place. Such evidence, if not impossible, is extremely hard to find. I agree with you that not all the Ullamahs in the Islamic countries you mentioned in your review would stick to this direct evidence when dishing out punishment for adultery. These Ullamahs are maligning Islam.

Salaam.
 

GB26: Stone to death punishment for adultery

There is no “Stone to Death” punishment for adultery prescribed anywhere in Qur’an; the Ullamahs who preach this punishment are lying, are misleading people and are maligning Islam and those who sanction this horrific punishment on human beings are committing crime against humanity. The mindset of the most Ullamahs is geared up to blame woman for the adultery; adultery is a sinful act between the two consenting individuals; therefore it is wrong to blame only woman for the adulterous act.

The ‘Stone to Death’ punishment is a pre-Islamic period ancient Jewish law that has been imported into Islam by the Jews when they embraced Islam and is still being practised in some Islamic countries today. This barbaric practice contradicts the Qur’anic law that instructs 100 lashes to both adulterers if proven guilty and in order to prove adulterers guilty there must be 4 reliable witnesses who must have seen the adultery act actually taken place. Such witnesses are hard to find and therefore for practical purposes adultery is virtually an unpunishable sin in Islam. Please don’t go berserk with it; adultery is still an act of sin; you might escape the punishment in this world, but you would definitely not escape it in the next world; He is watching you!

Societies have evolved since the time of the 7th century Arabia; in modern societies of today alleged adulterers can be tried in court and if proven guilty they could be put into prison instead of subjecting them to an ancient desert law of the lashes.

GB25: An account of the problems of Muslims living in the west

We Muslims who have come from all parts of the Islamic world and live in the west have put up a social barrier between us and the local western communities by wearing ritualistic outfits like Hijab, Jilbab, Niqab, Bhurqa, Beard and Topi which alienate us and pose a hindrance towards achieving social cohesion in the western society we live in. Unfortunately, the European converts add another burden to the problem when most of them furnish themselves with these outfits very eagerly to flaunt their Muslimhood to show off that they are Muslims.  It definitely pleases us that the Islam is spreading in the west and is spreading fast; however, the problem is that these Yogi Pots are giving out a wrong image of Islam to the world. This ritualistic imagery upsets the Europeans and their governments and therefore ban on some of these outfits is spreading across the Europe. Surprisingly some of our Muslim scholars support these bans.

The above mentioned so called Islamic outfits are not part of the Islamic dress codes but are pre-Islamic period ancient Persian, Christian and Jewish tribal customs that have been imported into Islam when those tribes embraced Islam.

Following story illustrates the sheer ignorance of a western convert who wears full veil Bhurqa and drives car; naturally by doing so she takes a huge risk of causing an accident. But of course she says she does it in the name of Islam; she believes she must not reveal her beauty because the Qur’an says so. The reality is that the stupid woman has misinterpreted the Qur’an; Qur’an never says we must not reveal our beauty, Qur’an says we must not reveal the sensual parts of our body.

Islam does not belong only to a few misinformed individuals, it belongs to all of us and we all are duty bound to safeguard its image by doing whatever we can and wherever we live in this world. I endeavour to raise awareness of the true teachings of Qur’an as much as I can.

Salaam.
 

[Intro:]

Intro: A reviewer posted a question that Jilbab wearing girls on Jilbab websites look pretty, sexy and glamorous; is this dress acceptable in Islam?

Reply: You may be right that the girls who wear Jilbabs and parade on Jilbab websites look pretty, sexy and glamorous; but please do bear in mind that these girls are models; they are supposed to look pretty, sexy and glamorous. If I try the same Jilbab, it would look drab on me and my husband might not like my company. However, if you are an orthodox Muslim and find the aura exhibits of these Muslim models unIslamic then let us put this question to God and see how He clarifies the situation in Qur’an.

Qur’an 7:26 reads: O Ye children of Adam!  We have bestowed raiment upon you to cover the sensual parts of your bodies as well as to BEAUTIFY YOURSELF. In other words God permitted us to ‘beautify ourselves’ and if by doing so we come out pretty, sexy and glamorous then SubhanAllah, it is His will we can’t argue with Him.
 
If we watch Amana Sharif walk the Streets of London wearing a modern Jilbab on her, she will exhibit a glowing ‘Sex and Glamour’ appeal for greater than we ever would see on any of the models of the Jilbab websites. Are we going to blame Amana Sharif, are we going to condemn Jilbab or are we going to question God for it? God has bestowed beauty on Amana Bibi in his own wisdom and we can’t argue with Him. I wish He had bestowed the same beauty on me.

In light of the above analysis, my answer to your question is: the aim and purpose of Jilbab in present day and age is to afford Muslim women a distinctive Muslim identity in a non-Muslim society; their beauty, sex and glamour appeal do not count.

Salaam.
 

[Intro:]

The physical attributes of Jilbab

Intro: A few ladies sought my advice on the length, the thickness and the material of the Jilbab that would be permissible in Islam.

Reply: Qur’an did not specify the length, the thickness and the material of the Jilbab; therefore it is a commonsense that we choose these physical attributes of Jilbab ourselves to please our personal taste and to suit the time and the location we happen to live in. Please Google “Jilbab” for more details.

I am not saying that Muslim women Must Must & Must wear Jilbab neither does the Qur’an insists upon this. However, those orthodox Muslim women who would wish to exhibit their Muslim identity well above the rest they have the choice in Islam to wear it. A modern Muslim woman can choose from a selection of dresses available these days that would cover her all around very well; therefore, wearing of Jilbab is no longer necessary, instead it is an extra body burden especially in hot countries.

Salaam.

[Jilbab:]

GB24: Jilbab in Islam

Jilbab: The streets of the 7th century Arabia were rampant with prostitutes and a Muslim woman taking a walk there could be mistaken as one of them and hence could get harassed or molested by the street hooligans. Therefore, the Sur’ah 33:39 was revealed that instructed the Muslim women to cover themselves with Jilbab over their persons (not over their heads) so that they distinct themselves as Muslima and don’t get mistaken for a prostitute.

Of course, societies have evolved and cultures have changed since the 7th century Arabia; now women travel to work on their own, they travel city to city on their own, they travel country to country on their own, they don’t wear Jilbab and they don’t get molested. Therefore, there is no need for Jilbab in the evolved societies of today.

Nevertheless, if a Muslima wishes to keep her Muslim identity in a non-Muslim society like that of the west then I believe that Jilbab might be an answer to her identity issue. And an innovatively designed modern Jilbab might take the fashion industry by storm. Both Bhurqa and Hijab are not prescribed in Qur’an and they do not fit in the western society; therefore, they must be discouraged.

The purpose of the Jilbab: Jilbab affords Muslim woman a dress code by virtue of which she can distinct her identity as a Muslima in a non-Muslim society. The purpose of Jilbab, however, was different in the 7th century Arabia but it would be different in the 21st century of the world of today.

Salaam.
 

[Intro:]

GB23: A view on the Bhurqa ban

Intro: The Bhuqa clad Muslim women argue that if a Nun in Christianity can wear Bhurqa look alike dress then why it is wrong for a Muslim woman to wear Bhurqa.

Reply: Ayatollahs, Ullamahs, Imams in Islam, Pope, Bishops, Nuns in Christianity, Rabbis in Jewish religion and clerics of other religions they all wear out of ordinary dresses in order to distinct themselves as people of religious knowledge and authority. However, we ordinary folks on the street shouldn’t copy our religious clergies’ dress codes in order to make ourselves equal to them; imagine every Christian man in the UK dresses like a Pope and every Christian woman dresses like a Nun, UK would look like a miserable place to live. I will jump the ship. Nuns are the spiritual leaders and guardians of Christian faith; the Bhurqa clad women on the other hand are not the spiritual leaders and guardians of Islam, therefore it would be foolish of them to copy Nuns’ dress code in order to claim equality with them.

Bhurqa women are following a blind belief which they can’t testify with a Qur’anic Aiat, they do not have a role model in the present day Muslim societies which they could look up to and with the net of Bhurqa ban in the European and even in Muslim countries closing on them they have begun to feel stupid and alone. Contrary to their belief I have seen in the United Kingdom women praying Jummah prayers without covering their hair, I have seen women giving Khutbas and leading prayers of mixed congregation with women lined up behind men. Islam is getting modernised Mashaallah, Qur’an is silent about it and those Ullamahs who have been conditioning women for centuries to stay covered from head to toe are loosing ground. No wonder Qur’an is the final testament meant to fit the all ages.

Bhurqa women have to face the reality that Bhurqa is not a religious requirement in Islam and it does not fit in the western societies they live in.

Bhurqa is a health hazard dress. Medical experts tell us that Bhurqa clad women don’t get enough sun in their bodies; they develop deficiency in vitamin D that makes them suffer from anxiety and depression, they begin to look pale and in most cases their children are born with health problems.

Salaam.
 

[Intro:]

 The Saudi Arabian Law is not a Qur’anic Law

Intro: It is illegal under the Saudi Arabian law for women to mix with unrelated men. A reviewer asked a question that is Saudi Arabian law the same as the Qur’anic law?

Reply: The above Saudi Arabian law ‘for women not to mix with unrelated men’ is not a Qur’anic law; Saudi made up this law to make it fit their own Saudi tribal custom just like the Saudi men’s dress is Saudi Arab tribal dress but it is not an Islamic dresses.

Qur’an does not forbid women mixing with unrelated men as long as they observe modesty between them. Modesty is not defined in Qur’an, God gave us freedom to craft modesty ourselves to suit the age, the time and the location we happen to live in. Modesty or Hijab constitutes several social etiquettes: like the way we dress, the way we communicate with each other and the way we behave in public making sure that we do not exhibit vulgarity in our social behaviour.

Modesty can vary from country to country and region to region within the country. For example, it is considered immodest in Saudi Arabia for women to drive cars; while in the west and in many other countries It is a normal activity of daily living for women to drive cars and falls well within the purview of the modesty practised in those countries.

According to the recent Saudi Fatwa it will be a modest act for women to breastfeed unrelated men in order to adopt Mehrams (symbolic relatives); however in the west the idea of adult breastfeeding is considered immodest, vulgar and disgusting.

Salaam.
 

[The Fatwa:]

GB22: Saudi Fatwa forces women to breastfeed unrelated adult men

The Fatwa: It is illegal under the Saudi Arabian law for men to mix with unrelated women. Therefore, Saudi Sheikhs inspired by a fake Hadeese have issued a Fatwa that forces women, who come into regular contact with unrelated men, to breastfeed them so that they can be considered their symbolic ‘relatives’ and not potential lovers. One Skeikh says that the man should drink milk from a cup while the second Sheikh demands that man must suckle directly from the breast.

The Analysis: The Islamic world is full of freaks who suffer from irrational compulsive delusions; they make up Shariah laws on their whims as they go along without any regard for the dictums of the holy Qur’an; Hadeeses come first and Qur’an teachings are secondary to them. This Fatwa is an act of religious vandalism at the hands of the two Shaikhs of Saudi Arabia who debased the sanctity of the Islamic faith by sanctioning an immoral physical act between a man and a woman, i.e. they sanctioned the first step towards adultery of which the second step becomes so much easier to take.

The Saudi Fatwa made a broad day light mockery of Islam worse than Sullaman Rushdi’s Satanic Verses did and it is so disgraceful that we Muslims hang our heads in shame when we read or talk about it. The Fatwa has turned women into goats where any regular visitor can walk in, uncover their breasts and suckle milk out of their nipples. The freaking Saudi Shaikhs are working hard to make their bizarre madness to work.

The Qur’anic Injuntions: Qur’an 24:31 gave a list of Mahrems (relatives) with whom a woman can mix freely but Qur’an did not instruct to adopting Mahrems from unrelated members of the public; Saudi Shaikhs who have issued a Fatwa on the basis of a Hadeese are following a fake Hadeese and are therefore violating the Qur’anic law. However, Qur’an does not forbid women mixing with unrelated men as long as they observe modesty between them: Qur’an 24:30

The human rights issue: Do Saudi Shaikhs know anything about the human rights? Did they consult their women when issuing the Fatwa or only men decide in Saudi Arabia and women’s opinions do not count?

Islam is a man’s world: Over the centuries The Holy Men have been conditioning women to stay covered from head to toe in the name of Islam; now they are telling them to unveil their breasts and have their teats suckled by unrelated men in the name of Islam. Glory to The Holy Men!

Reference: Please Google on 'Saudi Fatwa on Breastfeeding.'

Salaam.
 

[Intro:]

“Exclusion Order” on Dr Zakir Naik

Intro: There was an article in The Sunday Times of the 30th of May 2010 in United Kingdom in which the writer of the article blamed Dr Naik for preaching hate material “sermons of malice” against the west.

Reply: The writer David Leppard twisted and criticised some of the Dr Naik’s preachings and he lied through his teeth to defame Naik in an attempt to stop him from entering the UK. Unfortunately, the Home Office, London, has issued an “Exclusion Order” on Dr Naik preventing him from travelling to the UK. I don’t think that Leppard’s article influenceed the decision of the Home Office, Home Office must have carried out its own study on Dr Naik and then decided on the basis of its own findings and judgements.

Dr Naik’s problem: It took hundreds of years for the west to evolve and evolve and bring its society to the point where it is today. Western society is the most tolerant society in the world in which people of all faiths and backgrounds live and work together in harmony and they do not like if an outsider walks in and disturbs the social harmony of their multi-cultural and multi-racial well-knit society. It is not simple as that for an outsider like Dr Naik to comprehend the realities and the complexities of the western society the way it works by visiting the west and passing through it. Therefore it is naive of Dr Zakir Naik to pick on the western society and criticise it by making negative remarks about it. Faults are in every society but Dr Naik is unable to see it. We in the Indo-Pak region have our own share of religious, social, political and economical problems that make Dr Naik’s criticism of the west akin to: ‘the pot calling the kettle black’.

My article GB18 highlights the negativity of Dr Naik’s preaching: he considers greeting happy X-max to Christians as Haraam in Islam. I found his this self-manufactured, anti Sun’nah and anti Qur’anic sermon utterly toxic that could drive a wedge between the Christian and the Muslim communities around the globe. His another ideology of “turning the tables over” is a joke to entertain in the west; the Europeans discuss matters openly they don’t “turn the tables over” on anybody nor do they like if anybody turn the tables on them; I live in the United Kingdom I know better than Dr Naik does.

Dr Naik’s preaching might appeal to the people of the Indo-Pak origin but his preaching against the west upset the people of the west. That is why David Leppard came out fighting against him. I think Dr Naik shot himself in the foot and is paying a heavy price for it. It is sad but that is the reality.

Ref: Aamna-Shariff.com, Forums, Religious Matters: GB18

Salaam.