I want to reemphasize what I mentioned at the beginning of the book—I am not a scholarly student of Mr. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. I am merely a layperson who has found some answers to my questions through Mr. Ghamidi’s teachings. If I make any errors in my understanding or in my explanation of what I have learned and understood from Mr. Ghamidi, he bears no responsibility for these mistakes.
standing or in my explanation of what I have learned and understood from Mr. Ghamidi, he bears no responsibility for these mistakes.
For those interested in exploring further details of the answers I share below, I recommend checking out Mr. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s books and videos across various platforms online. Some notable works include his books Meezan, Muqamaat, Burhan, and Al-Islam, as well as his video lecture series “Response to 23 Questions…” and “Dallas Lectures,” available on his primary YouTube channel, “Ghamidi Center of Islamic Learning.” Let us revisit the correct understanding of the sources of Islam that I learned from Mr. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. Although we have discussed this in detail in an earlier section, it is important to briefly analyze this point again to refresh our understanding before we dive into the ques-tion-and-answer section.
Sources of Islam
The Quran explicitly states on multiple occasions that God conveyed His message and religion solely through His Messengers and divine scriptures. Since Muhammad (PBUH) is God’s final Messenger, any belief or practice deemed part of God’s religion must have clear evidence of Muhammad’s (PBUH) approval. This means that for anything to be included in or excluded from the religion, there must be clear evidence that it was approved by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
Muhammad (PBUH) conveyed God’s teachings through the Quran and Sunnah.
The Quran asserts that it should be the primary lens through which all other religious literature is understood. For something to be deemed halal (lawful) or haram (unlawful), the Quran must allow or prohibit it, either directly or in principle. If the Quran represents the theory, then the Sunnah embodies the practical aspect of this theory. Both the Quran and Sunnah have been transmitted collectively from the Prophet (PBUH) through generations up to the present day. All of Islam is contained within the Quran and Sunnah.
The key to understanding the Quran is to approach it by first grasp-ing its correct introduction. The Quran is the preserved communica-tion from God, demonstrating His divine judgment on Earth through Muhammad (PBUH), His last Rasool. It contains:
• Details of how all humans will face divine accountability on Judgment Day and how to attain success in that accountability. The Quran asserts that it is written in clear Arabic and has been clearly explained, making it easy to understand. Therefore, interpreting the Quran must adhere to the prevailing rules of language comprehen-sion. For instance, when discerning the meanings of Quranic verses, one must consider the most commonly understood meanings of the words, the implications derived from the sentence structure, and the context.
Additionally, Quranic verses cannot be understood in isolation. Instead, they must be understood in conjunction with all other verses relating to a particular subject. For instance, when analyzing what the Quran says about a Muslim’s relationship with non-Muslims, all verses on this topic must be considered to form a correct opinion.
As a layperson, the most effective method for analyzing the Quranic text was first to comprehend its proper introduction, as previously men-tioned, and then to read a straightforward translation from beginning to end. Whenever I encountered something that I did not understand in the text, I marked it and consulted scholarly opinions on the internet or from books. If something still did not make sense, I endeavored to con-tact scholars and experts to discuss the matter with them. Additionally, while reading the translations, I made sure to distinguish between the translation and the additional explanations written in footnotes and parentheses, as those are usually the translators’ own opinions or inter-pretations of the text.
Hadith literature consists of reports about the actions and sayings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), transmitted not through mass trans-mission like the Quran and Sunnah, but through individual reports. It is a historical record of Muhammad’s (PBUH) life and must be under-stood through the lens of the Quran and Sunnah. This historical record contains explanations and applications of the religion as outlined in the Quran and Sunnah but does not introduce any new commandments of religion. All commandments of Islam are issued directly or in principle through the Quran and Sunnah only.
The history of the immediate companions of Muhammad (PBUH) is a significant resource for understanding their interpretations of Islam. However, these historical records have reached us via individual reports and must be scrutinized and understood within the framework of the Quran and Sunnah.
Let us now move on to the Question and Answer section.
Question 1: Is Muhammad (PBUH) The Last Messenger And Prophet Of God?
Yes—the Quran and Hadith clearly state that Muhammad (PBUH) is the last messenger and prophet of God, and no prophet or messenger shall come after him.
While earlier scriptures, such as the Old Testament, New Testament, and even Hindu scriptures, predicted the coming of the last Messiah and Prophet, whom Muslims believe to be Muhammad (PBUH), the Quran does not predict the coming of any more prophets or messengers after Muhammad (PBUH) and in fact clearly and very unambigu-ously states in one verse that Prophethood has ended with Muhammad (PBUH).
Quran 33:40 addresses this matter very clearly and says:
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but is the Messenger of God and the seal of the Prophets. And God has ࡈperfectࡉ knowledge of all things.
The word used for seal is “khaatam,” which commonly means to put a seal on something or to conclude something. Therefore, Muhammad (PBUH) is very clearly proclaimed as the seal or conclu-sion of Prophethood.
The Quran proclaims that God’s message and religion were com-pleted with Muhammad (PBUH), negating the need for any additional Prophets or Messengers. Quran 5:3 states:
Today I have perfected your religion for you, and I have completed my blessing upon you, and I have approved Islam for your religion.
This concept is further reinforced by several authentic Hadiths in which Muhammad (PBUH) proclaimed that all forms of Prophethood and Messengerhood ended with him. Let us analyze some of them below.
1) Sahih of Bukhari, No: 3525; Sahih of Muslim, No: 2287 Muhammad (PBUH) is reported to have said: “The example of me and the example of Prophets of earlier times is like the example of a most beautiful palace constructed by a man. The man left a blank space for the last brick in one of its corners.
People went around it and were surprised to look at its matchless beauty and exclaimed: ‘Why is a brick missing in the building?’ The Prophet (PBUH) said: ‘I am that last brick – I am the last Prophet of God.’”
2) Sahih of Muslim, No: 523 Muhammad (PBUH) is reported to have said: “I have been given the honor of excellence over other Prophets in six matters: (1) I have been bestowed with the ability to communicate ideas comprehensively with a few words; (2) I have been supported by being given awe and might; (3) Spoils of war have been made lawful for me; (4) The whole earth has been made a mosque and a means of purification for me; (5) I have been sent as a Prophet for the whole of humanity; (6) the chain of Prophethood has come to an end with me.”
3) Sahih of Musilm, No: 1842, 2404. Muhammad (PBUH) is reported to have said: “… there will be no Prophet after me.”4) Sahih of Bukhari, 3455, Sahih of Muslim, 1842 Muhammad (PBUH) is reported to have said: “Prophets themselves led Bani Israel. After the death of a Prophet, another Prophet took his place. But there shall be no Prophet after me.”
5) Sahih of Bukhari, No: 6589. Muhammad (PBUH) is reported to have said: “Nothing remains of prophethood except for things which give glad tidings.” They asked: “What are these?” He replied: “Good dreams.”
Some claim that Quran 33:40 proclaims that only law-bearing prophets have ended, suggesting there is still room for prophets who will preach the same law as Muhammad (PBUH). However, the wording of the verse is so clear, and there is such overwhelming reinforcement from Hadith literature, that there is simply no room for this interpretation of the verse.
Question 2: Why Did All Forms Of Messengerhood And Prophethood Conclude With Muhammad (PBUH)?
Even for a layperson, studying the Quran will clarify that God aimed to achieve three objectives through Muhammad (PBUH). Since all three objectives were successfully met, Prophethood concluded with Muhammad (PBUH). Let us briefly discuss what these three objectives were and how they were accomplished.
1. Raising a new nation to practice and preach God’s message to the world:God relieved the Israelites of their duty to proclaim His message and chose to establish a new nation among the descendants of Ishmael. This goal was realized when God raised an entire nation through Muhammad (PBUH), consisting of over a hundred thousand individuals who were comprehensively groomed and trained for their divine mission.
2. Provide humanity with the most compelling worldly evidence of Judgment Day: As discussed earlier, God unleashes a worldly demonstration of His judgment through His Rasools to their imme-diate addressees. The primary aim of this demonstration is to provide conclusive worldly proof of the divine judgment that awaits all human-kind after death.
In the case of Muhammad (PBUH), this worldly demonstration of divine judgment occurred on a massive global scale at a time when history was being meticulously recorded, making it a historical fact. Whether one believes that Muhammad (PBUH) was divinely inspired or not, with the exception of some extreme conspiracy theorists, it is undeniable that the major events involving Muhammad (PBUH) and his immediate companions truly happened.
God’s objective to provide and preserve conclusive evidence of di-vine judgment for humanity was achieved, as the events demonstrating divine judgment have been preserved in the established history of humanity.
3. Preserving Divine guidance for all future generations: The Quran 5:3 proclaims that divine guidance for humanity was completed with Muhammad (PBUH). Therefore, there is no need for new guid-ance. This divine guidance was perfectly preserved and transmitted as the “Quran” on a truly massive scale during Muhammad’s (PBUH) lifetime. The “Sunnah” was also preserved and transmitted en masse to more than a hundred thousand immediate followers. Hence, the ob-jective of completing and preserving divine guidance for all humanity to come was also achieved through Muhammad (PBUH).
Question 3: How Does Islam View Religious Authority and the Role of Muhammad (PBUH) in Guiding Believers?
God is not directly visible in this world, allowing for freedom of choice as part of a test, but the Quran mentions various instances where God indirectly guides people by instilling thoughts directly in their minds (8:24) or through angels who constantly bestow blessings on the righ-teous (Quran 41:30). However, the Quran also specifies that the indi-viduals who are contacted directly by the Almighty for the purpose of guiding others are Prophets and Messengers.
Since Muhammad (PBUH) is the last Prophet and Messenger, he is the ultimate authority on what God truly desires. In other words, Muhammad is the final source of God’s teachings. Anything deemed part of Islam, or excluded from it, must have clear evidence of being taught by Muhammad (PBUH).
Furthermore, everyone following Muhammad (PBUH), regardless of their knowledge or achievements, must acknowledge their fallibility as students of God’s religion, capable of both correct and incorrect interpretations. No one after Muhammad (PBUH) can claim to be infallible in their teachings about Islam or assert themselves as an au-thority on Islam.
In this regard, there is a very important Hadith that must be shared, in which Muhammad (PBUH) strictly forbade any addition or innova-tion in Islam that is not proven through the Quran or Sunnah:
The truest word is the Book of God (Quran) and the best guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (PBUH). The most evil things in religion are those which are newly invented, for every newly invented matter is an innovation, every innovation is misguidance (Mishkat al Masabih No: 134).
Question 4: What Are The Miracles In Islam?
People may experience divine miracles in their personal lives. However, a straightforward reading of the Quran reveals that the display of divine miracles to ordinary individuals was an exercise specifically reserved for Prophets and Messengers of God. This was done to capture the attention of individuals and evoke profound amazement, enabling the Messengers and Prophets to effectively deliver God’s message. Since this role concluded with Muhammad (PBUH), there will no longer be miracles for human beings. Consequently, according to the Quran, any-one claiming to perform divine miracles is likely either lying or deluded.
In my personal opinion, after reading the Quran, anyone claim-ing to see angels or the souls of saints or to perform miracles after Muhammad (PBUH) is either lying, experiencing psychiatric issues, or being deceived by Jinns into believing that they are seeing angels and saints.
Question 5: What Is The Relevance Of The Events That Occurred After Muhammad (PBUH)?
As a Muslim, I believe that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) conveyed God’s religion to humanity through the Quran and Sunnah, which encompass all the moral dos and don’ts that I must follow to ensure my success in the divine accountability on the Day of Judgment. The details and application of these principles are further elaborated in the Hadith literature. Within this Hadith literature, there is a specific Hadith in which the entirety of religion is laid out in concise pointers; this spe-cific Hadith is known as the Hadith of Gabriel. I limit my focus to this framework—I strictly adhere to the clear DOs and DON’Ts of Islam. As I am neither a student of history nor an academic, I do not engage in studying events that occurred after the passing of Muhammad (PBUH).
Events following the time of Muhammad (PBUH), which have led to significant divisions among Muslims, are irrelevant to my eternal salvation or damnation. For instance, according to the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah, no one will question me on the Day of Judgment about whom I believed should have succeeded Muhammad (PBUH) or which of the Prophet’s companions (PBUH) I considered to be righ-teous or superior in rank to others.
Question 6: Is Muhammad (PBUH) Considered Superior To All Other Prophets?
A Naat is a poem recited in praise of Muhammad (PBUH). I grew up in Pakistan listening to a very popular Naat called “Shah e Medina,” which means “Chief of Medina.” It starts off with the following verse:
Oh Chief of Medina, oh guardian of Yathrib—all prophets are beggars at your doorstep
The belief that Muhammad (PBUH) is superior to all other proph-ets is a prevalent notion among Muslims in the sub-continent. However, both the Quran and Hadith clearly and sternly discourage Muslims from making comparisons between prophets.
The Quran proclaims in Chapter 2, Verse 253, that God indeed raised some Prophets higher in rank than others. The verse further states, as examples, that God spoke directly to Moses (PBUH) and gave the clearest proofs to Jesus (PBUH), while also providing him with the constant support of the Holy Spirit, Gabriel.
However, Muslims are clearly instructed in Quran 2:136 that they should believe in all prophets of God as the bearers of the divine mes-sage and should not indulge in the practice of making distinctions between them.
Say, O believers, we believe in God and what has been re-vealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and his descendants (peace be upon them), and what was given to Moses, Jesus, and other prophets (peace be upon them) from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them. And to God we all submit (Quran 2:136).
Muhammad (PBUH) possesses several prestigious attributes as a Prophet. For instance, he reportedly stated in a Hadith that he has been distinguished in six matters in comparison to other Prophets..
As per Sahih of Muslim, No: 523:
Muhammad (PBUH) is reported to have said: I have been given the honor of excellence over other Prophets in six mat-ters: (1) I have been bestowed with the ability to commu-nicate ideas comprehensively with a few words; (2) I have been supported by being given awe and might; (3) Spoils of war have been made lawful for me; (4) The whole earth has been made a mosque and a means of purification for me; (5) I have been sent as a Prophet for the whole of humanity; (6) the chain of Prophethood has come to an end with me.
While acknowledging that some prophets hold higher ranks than others, Muhammad (PBUH) passionately and repeatedly denied that his rank was the highest among the prophets. Sahih Muslim records that a man approached Muhammad (PBUH) and addressed him as “Oh best of creation.” Muhammad (PBUH) interrupted him and corrected him by saying, “That is Abraham – upon whom be peace” (No: 2369).
In the Sahih of Bukhari No: 3234 and Jami of Tirmidhi No: 3245,
Muhammad (PBUH) is reported to have said, “No one should say that I am better than Jonah, son of Mata,” and “Whoever says that I am better than Jonah, son of Mata, has told a lie.
According to Sahih Muslim (No: 2373), Muhammad (PBUH) instructed his followers not to claim that he was superior to Moses (PBUH). He further explained that on the Day of Judgment, when he is resurrected, Moses (PBUH) will already be standing by the throne of God.
Moreover, Muhammad explicitly instructed his followers to abstain from comparing Prophets and considering one superior to others. He is reported to have said:
Do not indulge in comparisons of making one Prophet better than the other (Sahih of Bukhari, No: 228).
In essence, God exalted some prophets above others in various respects, yet Muslims are instructed not to make comparisons among them. Muhammad (PBUH) received numerous honors and distinctions as a prophet, but he never declared himself superior to other prophets. In fact, he expressed the opposite.
Question 7: Why Were All the Prophets in the Middle East?
I discussed this in detail while exploring Muhammad (PBUH) as a Rasool of God. The Quran proclaims that prophets were sent to every nation and society until the time of Abraham (PBUH) (Quran 10:47, 17:15, 28:59). After Abraham (PBUH), the role of prophethood was made exclusive to his descendants with the purpose of elevating na-tions to spread God’s message (Quran 29:27, 3:33). The Quran states that some prophets are mentioned within its pages, but there are many whom only God knows about (Quran 25:38, 14:9). It also clarifies that the reason for narrating stories of specific prophets from the Middle East is that the Quran’s immediate audience—the Arab pagans and the People of the Book—were already familiar with these prophets’ stories (Quran 54:4).
Question 8: Why Did Muhammad (PBUH) Have Multiple Marriages?
Many critics of Islam object to the multiple marriages of Muhammad (PBUH), arguing that a person who claims to be as holy as a Prophet of God should not marry multiple women.
I find this objection incorrect for the following reasons:
1) According to the Quran, there is nothing unholy or morally wrong with being attracted to the opposite gender as long as everything intimate and sexual is confined within the limits of marriage.
2) The concept of men marrying multiple times was a very normal practice in Muhammad’s (PBUH) era and culture; this practice continues to be a norm in many cultures and societies today. Even Muhammad’s (PBUH) fiercest opponents among the Meccan idol-worshippers made no moral objections to this aspect of his life.
3) Despite polygamy being common, Muhammad (PBUH) mar-ried for the first time at the age of 25 and remained monoga-mous for 24 years until his wife Khadija passed away. Therefore, Muhammad (PBUH) spent his entire youth loyal to one woman, demonstrating that he was not a man driven by lust. 4) Since male polygamy was the norm in Muhammad’s (PBUH) era and culture, where there was no limit on the number of times a man could marry, Muhammad (PBUH) married ten times after his first wife passed away. Given that Muhammad (PBUH) led a significant social, ideological, military, and political movement, most of these marriages aimed to fulfill the needs of his mission. It is also noteworthy that all the women Muhammad (PBUH) married were either divorcees or widows, with the exception of Aisha (RA).
If you wish to analyze the reasons behind each of Muhammad’s (PBUH) marriages, please check out my podcast titled “Conversing Islam with Hamza Ali Abbasi – Episode 10,” uploaded on the YouTube channel “Ghamidi Center of Islamic Learning.” This podcast is avail-able in Urdu with English subtitles.
Given the context I mentioned above, I personally do not find anything objectionable with Muhammad (PBUH) marrying multiple times. Yes, it would have been disturbing if he had mistreated any of his wives. However, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Muhammad (PBUH) did not treat his wives well. In fact, his wives were given the utmost respect by both Muhammad (PBUH) and his followers. Evidence from the Quran confirms that all his wives were treated very well by Muhammad (PBUH). Let me briefly discuss this evidence.
In Quran 33:28-34, God informs Muhammad’s (PBUH) wives that, due to their role as his spouses, they will be subjected to special restrictions owing to the turbulent circumstances surrounding Islam’s struggle. Before imposing these limitations, they are given the option to depart through divorce if they prefer not to adhere to these con-ditions. Should they choose to leave, they were to be provided with a gracious monetary compensation and allowed to go in a dignified manner. However, none of them left; instead, they voluntarily accepted these additional restrictions, despite having the option to leave amica-bly. This serves as compelling evidence that Muhammad (PBUH) did not mistreat his wives. After all, their willingness to accept such strict additional restrictions, knowing they could have safely exited, raises a significant question: How could they so readily obey, through the command of a God whose prophet their husband claimed to be if they were being oppressed or treated poorly?
Question 9: Does The Quran Justify Domestic Violence?
Quran 4:34 is often criticized as a verse that justifies domestic violence and grants husbands free rein to use physical force against their wives. This verse posed the most significant challenge for me within Islam, and it took years to find an answer that was both morally and rationally justified.
A detailed examination of this verse, along with its context, clearly indicates that the act of using physical force on a wife is generally con-sidered a criminal act. However, it is permitted as an extreme measure in exceptionally rare situations as a final attempt to save the marriage. This comes with the stringent condition that the physical punishment must not leave any marks or injuries on the body.
Analysis of Quran 4:34:
As previously discussed in detail, the Quran regards the institution of marriage and family as the most important institution created by God to provide long-term physical, spiritual, emotional, and psychological care to both the young and the elderly.
The Quran goes to great lengths to protect the institution of family. For example, the strength of the family unit weakens in societies where sexual relations outside of marriage are normalized and not considered taboo. Consequently, Islam has criminalized all forms of sexual behav-ior and actions outside of marriage. There is another crime lethal to every institution, including mar-riage, and that is “rebellion.” Whether it concerns the state, military, bureaucracy, corporate world, or marital relationships, rebellion is not tolerated because even a minimal acceptance of it guarantees the de-struction of the institution. This is why even the most liberal countries enact extremely severe punishments for acts of rebellion. For example, in Norway, known for having some of the most lenient laws among modern states, prison sentences for acts of rebellion can range from 6 to 21 years.67
Every institution requires a leader to guide it. Without a head, no institution can function effectively. The Quran designates husbands as the heads of the family. Let me explain.
Women and men are equal in the sight of God. However, when they enter into marriage, the Quran assigns more responsibility to the husband—particularly in financial matters. Due to this significant responsibility, the Quran designates the husband as the head of the family institution. This elevated rank of the husband means one thing: whenever there is a deadlock on a family-related decision, where both husband and wife cannot come to a common ground, the husband gets the final say.
The Quran has absolutely no issues with a woman earning money and choosing to contribute to the family. However, her contribution is optional, meaning she can keep all her earnings and does not carry the burden of financial responsibility for the family. On the other hand, the husband must fulfill the financial needs of the family as an obligation. Additionally, there are voices within Islam that suggest the office of the head of the family can transfer to the wife if she stipulates in the marriage contract that she will assume the financial responsibilities of the family. However, the Quran clarifies that the husband has more re-sponsibility, and hence, he is granted more authority in decision-making as the head of the family institution. The Quranic directive that assigns a husband a higher rank than his wife is not an act of gender discrimination. As previously mentioned, men and women are equal in the eyes of God. It is only within the confines of marriage that the roles and responsibilities designated to the positions of husband and wife differentiate their ranks.
It is worth mentioning that within the same institution of the family where the husband is given a rank higher than the wife, the mother is accorded a higher rank than the father with respect to the children (Sahih Muslim, No: 6181).
So, it is not about gender, but the rights and responsibilities of dif-ferent relationships within the institution of marriage.
Now, let us examine the verse Quran 4:34. This verse addresses an extreme situation involving a wife guilty of “Nushuz,” which signifies outright recalcitrance. The term implies that the wife is displaying such extreme and persistent rebellion, causing significant nuisance and threatening to disrupt the entire family unit
In such a situation, the husband is first advised to make a persistent effort to talk to her—this may need to be done over an extended pe-riod, possibly spanning several weeks or months. If the recalcitrance continues, the husband is advised to end all interaction with the wife to underscore the severity of the situation. It is important to note that both the husband and the wife are free to leave each other during this time. However, if the wife’s rebellion persists and neither spouse has departed, then as a last resort to save the marriage, the husband is allowed to use physical force. Three things are to be noted here.
1) The use of physical force is permitted only as a corrective mea-sure, akin to how a parent or teacher might lightly reprimand a misbehaving child. It should not leave any mark or injury on the body; otherwise, the act becomes a punishable criminal of-fense. These guidelines were issued by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). According to a Hadith, he instructed that any phys-ical reprimand on the wife should not leave any mark or injury on the body (Sunan Ibn Majah, No: 1851).
2) The allowance of physical force is an option, not a divine ob-ligation; therefore, if societies believe that men are abusing this option, governments have the authority to create laws that remove this option from men entirely.
3) The husband may invoke his right to physical chastisement only if there is a realistic possibility that it might save the marriage. One might wonder whether the use of physical force by a hus-band towards a wife, who exhibits persistent and blatant mis-conduct, is more likely to worsen the situation and expedite the dissolution of the marriage rather than prevent it. However, the Quran is considered relevant for all times and cultures. There may be scenarios in certain cultural contexts, both historical and contemporary, where the use of physical force could potentially assist in correcting the wife’s blatant misconduct and preserve the marriage.
If there is Nushuz on the part of the husband, God has provided guidelines for the woman in Quran 4:128-130. In these verses, God instructs the woman should try to resolve the matter, and if it cannot be settled through passive means and the husband persists with Nushuz, then the woman is advised to leave the husband. However, it is not sug-gested that the wife attempt physical disciplinary action on the husband, for the following reason:
God has decreed that both men and women are equal in His sight. However, in the context of marriage, where men and women assume the roles of husband and wife, the husband holds a higher rank than the wife for the reasons previously discussed. The Quran views marriage strictly as an institution and mandates that it be governed according to the norms and laws that apply to any other institution. In this context, much like a senior-ranking Major in the army can reprimand a junior-ranking Captain but not vice versa, and just as a CEO can reprimand a Managing Director but not the other way around, so too in the institution of marriage is it typically seen that the husband can reprimand the wife, and not the other way around.
Now consider the alternate scenario—if the higher-ranking officer is misbehaving, although the junior-ranking officer cannot reprimand the senior-ranking officer, he is free to resign from the organization. Similarly, if the husband is guilty of Nushuz, then the wife has the right to leave the husband or resign from the marriage if the husband does not amend his behavior.
Muhammad (PBUH) understood very well that this allowance of using physical force provided it causes no scars or injuries, was meant to be an exceptionally rare measure in extraordinary situations. He likely also knew that many men would misuse this allowance to jus-tify domestic violence. Therefore, Muhammad (PBUH) consistently preached against the beating of women. For example, it is reported that Muhammad (PBUH) said:
Do not beat your women and do not be rude to them (Sunan of Abu Dawood, No: 2144).
Elsewhere, he is reported to have said:
The best of you are those who are best to their women (Sunan Al Tirmidhi, No: 1162).
Before we go on to the next few questions, it is important to men-tion here that whenever I have talked to many of my fellow Muslims about the commandments of face veil, hijab, gender segregation, music, and arts in Islam, the popular answer always starts with an elaborate monologue about the benefits of face veil, hijab, gender segregation and the harms of music and arts. I always clarify at this moment that my primary inquiry is not about the potential social, moral, and cultural benefits or harms of these things. My primary inquiry is about knowing what the commandments of God are in these domains as far as their allowance or prohibition is concerned.
Question 10: Does Islam Prohibit Music And Other Art Forms?
Important Note: For detailed answers to this subject with references, please watch the video series titled “Response to 23 Questions – Singing and Music (Ghina aur Moseeqi) – Javed Ahmed Ghamidi” on the YouTube channel “Ghamidi Center of Islamic Learning.”
Music And Other Art Forms Are Not Prohibited In The Quran
For something to be deemed as prohibited or Haraam in Islam, it must either be directly prohibited by the Quran or be prohibited in prin-ciple by the Quran. For instance, the Quran explicitly forbids all sexual activity outside of marriage. On the other hand, an example of prohib-iting something in principle is the Quran’s prohibition of intoxication. Therefore, according to this principle, anything that causes intoxica-tion—whether in liquid, smokable, or injectable form—is prohibited in both large and small quantities. Another example is the Quran’s principle against “Injustice”; thus, any specific activity that causes any kind of injustice to anyone is prohibited. In the case of music and other art forms, there is no place in the Quran that directly or in principle, prohibits music, musical instruments, or any other form of art..
Music And Other Art Forms Are Not Prohibited In Hadith Literature
As far as the Hadiths are concerned, there is no authentic Hadith where Muhammad (PBUH) proclaims a complete ban on musical instru-ments. In fact, there are multiple authentic Hadiths where Muhammad (PBUH) approves of singing and dancing. According to these Hadiths, Muhammad (PBUH), his wives, and his companions listened to both male and female singers on various occasions. Moreover, there are numerous Hadiths where Muhammad (PBUH) encourages singing and music at weddings and festivals such as Eid. While Muhammad (PBUH) does caution his followers about the potential harms of music in many of these Hadiths, he does not outright prohibit it. Here are some examples:
The Misconception That Only The Use Of “Daff” Is Allowed
In the Hadith mentioned above, the singers are typically accom-panied by the use of a Daff (hand drum) as a musical instrument. This has led many Muslim scholars to form the opinion that only the Daff is permitted while other musical instruments are not. For this perspective to be accurate, there must be a Quranic verse or Hadith explicitly stating that all musical instruments are prohibited, with Muhammad’s (PBUH) approval of the Daff being a specific exemption to this rule. However, there is no passage in the Quran or Hadith that clearly declares all musical instruments as forbidden. Consequently, there is no basis to believe that all musical instruments are banned in Islam, with the sole exception being the Daff. Moreover, this notion is further challenged by an intriguing Hadith where Muhammad (PBUH) reflects on an instance from his youth, before receiving prophethood, where God prevented him from sinning by engaging him in listening to the music of the Daff and “other musical instruments” at a wedding. This anecdote suggests that musical instruments, other than the Daff, are not inherently sinful; otherwise, how could they be utilized by God as a means to prevent sin? Let us briefly analyze this particular Hadith.
In Sahih Ibn Hibban, (No: 6272), Muhammad (PBUH) explains to his friend that a long time before receiving Prophethood, during his younger days, he intended to commit a sin twice, yet God saved him. Muhammad (PBUH) explains that in two separate instances, he attempted to go to those gatherings where “young men of Mecca used to go.” Muhammad (PBUH) could be referring to those kinds of gath-erings that involved adult entertainment like intoxicants, gambling, and women. Muhammad (PBUH) elaborates in this Hadith that while on his way, both times he got distracted by music and singing at a wedding taking place in a house. He kept enjoying that music and singing until he dozed off and did not make it to the gatherings he was going to, and that is how God saved him from sinning. He specifically mentions that at these weddings there was singing with “drums” (Daff in Arabic) and “other musical instruments” (Mazaameer in Arabic).
In a nutshell, musical instruments, singing, and other art forms are not directly or fundamentally prohibited in the Quran or Hadith. In fact, there are numerous hadiths where Muhammad (PBUH) permits singing and the use of the Daff, among other musical instruments. There are certain passages in the Quran and Hadith that some seg-ments of the Muslim community interpret as directives prohibiting mu-sical instruments and all forms of art. However, upon closer inspection, these passages are instructions to avoid the unlawful and immoral usage of musical instruments and other forms of art, rather than imposing a total ban on them. Let us briefly analyze these Quranic verses and Hadith.
A – Analysis of verses from the Quran presented to establish that Islam prohibits music and singing:
In the Quran, there are primarily three passages that are often cited as evidence that God has forbidden music. However, upon closer exam-ination, these verses actually prohibit the misuse of music and other art forms, rather than imposing a comprehensive ban on them.
1) Quran 31:6 states,
There are some who use distraction and amusement for the sole purpose of turning people away from God’s path … and to make a mockery of it. They will suffer a humiliating punishment
The term “Lahv” refers to anything that distracts or amuses people, such as poetry, sports, music, dancing, or any other activity that can occupy individuals. Those who argue that Islam prohibits music claim that “Lahv” in this context specifically denotes music. However, this interpretation is flawed because the word “Lahv” appears in various other places in the Quran, including Surah Anaam verse 32, Ankabut verse 64, Anbiya verse 17, and Araaf verse 51. In each instance, “Lahv” is used to signify distraction and amusement, not necessarily music or singing. Although music can be a form of distraction, the Quran does not explicitly use the word “Lahv” to refer only to music but employs it more broadly to indicate anything that might divert people from reli-gious obligations. Esteemed scholars such as Tabari, Zamakshari, and even Maududi—someone who deems music as prohibited in Islam—all translated Lahv as things that amuse and distract people, not specifi-cally as music.
However, these verses were revealed when the pagan leaders of Mecca deployed singers and dancers to distract people from listening to Muhammad’s (PBUH) preaching of the Quran. Even if we agree that this particular verse implies singing and dancing, it is clearly ad-dressing the misuse of these arts, rather than proclaiming a complete ban on them. The verse suggests that any art form used to distract people from religious obligations is an unlawful use of art. In fact, the Quran proclaims that any activity, otherwise lawful, becomes unlawful if it interferes with religious duties. Take trade, for example, which is a perfectly lawful activity according to Islam. Quran 62:11 states that if trade distracts a person from their religious obligations, then that trade activity becomes sinful.
So, in short, these verses do not specifically address music or sing-ing, but instead refer to any activity that serves as a distraction or a source of amusement. However, if one interprets the word “Lahv” to mean music and singing, even then, the verse does not declare an out-right ban on art. Rather, it suggests that music, singing, or art becomes problematic if people engage in these activities to the extent that they neglect their religious obligations.
2) Quran 17:64: This verse communicates that the devil is granted the freedom to incite people through his voice. The verse states:
And incite whoever you can of them with your voice, mobi-lize against them all your cavalry and infantry – manipulate them in their wealth and children and make them promises. But Satan promises them nothing but delusion.
The Arabic word for “voice” is derived from “Sawt,” which literally means “voice.” For those who consider music prohibited in Islam, they argue that the “devil’s voice,” as mentioned in the verse, refers to music and singing. However, this is not true because, firstly, even a beginner-level student of Arabic can easily discern that the word used in the verse, the con-struction, and the context of the sentence all make it clear that Satan’s voice here refers to his whispers, which invite people to evil. Secondly, renowned Islamic scholars such as Tabari, Zamakhshari, Shah Abdul Qadir, and Maududi did not translate this word as singing or music.
3) Quran 53:59-61: These verses address individuals who belittle and mock the verses of the Quran while they continue to engage deeply in amusements. Many believers assert that music and singing are pro-hibited in Islam, interpreting the Arabic word “Saamidoon” used in this verse for “amusement” as specifically implying music and singing. However, no distinguished translator has explicitly defined this word as denoting music and singing. In its literal sense, “Samidoon” could refer to any entertaining activity, including sports.
Secondly, if, for the sake of argument, one accepts that the Quran implies music and singing by the term “amusement” in this verse, it still emphasizes that engaging in music and singing while being heedless of the Quran and mocking it is prohibited. Therefore, the Quran reit-erates that any activity, whether trade or art, pursued while neglecting one’s religious duties is haram. These verses do not suggest an all-out prohibition on music and art.
B – Analysis of some Hadith presented to establish that Islam prohibits music and singing:
There are several narrations that are cited as evidence that all kinds of musical instruments are prohibited. Let’s examine them briefly.
Hadith #1: In Bukhari 5590, Muhammad (PBUH) is reported to have said, “There will come people in my nation who will make lawful for themselves sexual intercourse, silk, intoxicants, and musical instruments.”
This Hadith does not prohibit all forms of sexual intercourse, silk, and musical instruments, but only those types that are deemed unlawful in Islam. Let me explain:
This Hadith states that people will consider four things lawful which are otherwise unlawful in Islam. Let’s examine whether these four items are entirely prohibited in Islam or only conditionally prohibited.
1)Intoxicants:All forms of intoxicants are strictly prohibited in the Quran, as evidenced by Quran 5:90. Thus, the Hadith states that people will openly consume various types of intoxicants.
2)Sexual Intercourse: Not all kinds of sexual intercourse are prohibited in Islam, as sexual relations between a husband and wife are lawful. Therefore, the Hadith does not suggest that all forms of sexual intercourse are prohibited and that people will declare them permissible on their own. Instead, the Hadith indicates that people will regard types of sexual intercourse pro-hibited in Islam—such as intercourse outside of marriage—as permissible..
3) Silk: Silk is prohibited for men but entirely lawful for women.
Therefore, the Hadith does not suggest that all kinds of silk are prohibited in Islam and that people will make it permissible for themselves. Rather, the Hadith implies that men will openly wear silk, which is unlawful in Islam.
4) Musical Instruments: We discussed above that, as per the Quran and Hadith, musical instruments are not entirely prohib-ited, but their unlawful usage is prohibited. Hence, this Hadith is stating that people will freely enjoy the kind of songs and music which contains things prohibited in Islam.
Hadith #2: In another Hadith, recorded in the Musnad of Ahmed (No: 4535), Muhammad (PBUH), while traveling on a camel, hears someone playing a flute. He puts his fingers in his ears and asks his companion to continue listening to the flute and to let him know when the sound fades away. Those who claim that Islam prohibits musical instruments argue that since Muhammad (PBUH) put his fingers into his ears upon hearing a flute, this action serves as evidence that musical instruments are prohibited.
The question arises: If the flute was a prohibited musical instrument and it was considered a sin to listen to it, why did Muhammad (PBUH) ask his companion to continue listening? Why didn’t he instruct him to block his ears, and suggest that they both unblock their ears after traveling a bit further to avoid the sin of listening to a prohibited in-strument? Did Muhammad (PBUH) request the flute player to stop, or did he announce in Medina that the flute was a prohibited instrument? The answer is no!
Since Hadiths typically lack contextual information, it’s largely speculative to determine why Muhammad (PBUH) was disturbed by the flute. A more plausible hypothesis is that Muhammad (PBUH), known for reciting the Quran and engaging in other acts of worship during his journeys, might have found the flute distracting, which could explain why he blocked his ears.
Hadith #3, 4, and 5: In other Hadiths (Musnad of Ahmed, No: 8783; Musnad of Ahmed, No: 7566; and Sunan Kubra, No: 9483), Muhammad (PBUH) appears to express disdain for bells, particularly those hung under the necks of cattle, and he also mentions that angels are repelled by bells. This has been used as evidence to suggest that mu-sical instruments are prohibited. Firstly, a bell is not considered a proper musical instrument. Secondly, these Hadiths, like the one mentioned above, seem to reflect instances where Muhammad’s (PBUH) focus was disturbed and his worship interrupted, rather than a proclamation banning all musical instruments.
Prohibition Of Making Paintings And Sculptures Of Living Things
The correct approach to Islam and art is that Islam does not com-pletely prohibit art; rather, it prohibits forms of art that include elements forbidden in Islam. This understanding should be applied to Hadiths that appear to ban painting or sculpting living things. These Hadiths are primarily found in Bukhari, Nos. 5951, 5957, 5954, and in Muslim Nos. 2109c/2110a.
When viewed within the complete framework of the Quran—es-pecially through the lens of Quran 7:33—it becomes clear that im-age-making of living things was condemned by Muhammad (PBUH) because, in 7th century Arabia, painting and sculpting were primarily conducted for the purpose of idol worship. There is absolutely no pro-hibition against these art forms if they are not intended for idol worship and if they do not contain anything prohibited in Islam.
Moral Limitations On Music, Singing, And All Other Art Forms
At this point, a question arises: if Islam permits all forms of art but with certain moral conditions, what exactly are those conditions?
Even though the entire Quran is filled with these moral dos and don’ts, I will share a very special place in the Quran where these moral guidelines are explained concisely—it is Chapter 7, verse 33. In this verse, the following things are prohibited:
1) Any kind of sexual behavior or action outside of marriage: Whether it is the lyrics of a song, dialogues in a film or drama, the clothing of artists, and interactions between artists—if it is remotely sexual or physically intimate in nature, it is absolutely not allowed in Islam. 2) Injustice is prohibited: Whether it is in the lyrics of a song or the storyline of a film, if any element of an art form justifies or glorifies injustice, it is prohibited.
3) Unlawfully harming anyone’s life, property, or dignity is prohibited: If any aspect of an art form promotes or glorifies the infliction of unlawful damage to anyone’s life, property, or dignity, then such art is prohibited.
4) Associating partners with God is prohibited: If any art form pro-motes or glorifies Shirk—the practice of associating part-ners with God or worshiping multiple gods—then such art is prohibited.
5) Lying about God is prohibited: Any art form that spreads false ideas about God is therefore prohibited.
Apart from the five prohibitions previously discussed, if any art form is pursued or enjoyed at the expense of a religious obligation, it becomes an unlawful action, even if the art form falls within the afore-mentioned five limitations.
So, in a nutshell, neither the Quran nor the Hadith explicitly ban music or any other art form; they only prohibit their wrongful use. All art forms are permissible in Islam as long as they do not encompass anything forbidden by Islam.
Question 11: Does Islam Prescribe A Dress Code For Women, And Does It Mandate Covering Their Heads Or Faces?
The answer to this question can be divided into three parts:
1. Dress code for women in Surah Nur: The Quran, in these spe-cific verses, outlines principles concerning women’s attire. It does not make it obligatory for women to cover their faces and head. 2. Verses from Surah Ahzab: Certain verses are drawn from Surah Ahzab to justify the face veil and social restrictions imposed on women. However, when viewed in context, these verses specifically address instructions meant solely for the Prophet’s (PBUH) wives and delin-eate temporary measures for ordinary Muslim women under specific circumstances. These directives were issued against the backdrop of a particularly turbulent phase in Islam’s development, during which the Prophet’s (PBUH) household faced a vicious slander campaign and Muslim women experienced harassment and molestation in the streets of Medina. Thus, I aim to demonstrate that one set of verses from Surah Ahzab provides instructions exclusively for the Prophet’s wives and are not intended for ordinary Muslim women, while the other set of verses prescribes a temporary measure for Muslim women in an extraordinary situation, not meant to serve as an eternal policy for all women at all times.
Let’s discuss these two points one by one.
1. Dress code for women in Surah Nur: The dress code for women is discussed in Quran 24:30-31, while discussing how men and women should behave in their interactions, the Quran in Surah Nur issues specific moral instructions for both genders with the aim of purifying their interactions from any moral impurities. In this context, both men and women are instructed to look at each other with the utmost respect, encapsulated in the term “Lower your gaze,” and they must refrain from any kind of sexual behavior or action, underscored by the command to “Guard your private parts.”
“Guard your private parts” is a broad term that encompasses the following two things:
A) No sexual, sensual, or intimate contact of any kind is permis- sible without marriage. B) Clothing that draws attention to private parts should not be worn. Therefore, it is necessary to adequately cover private parts and their surrounding areas. For both men and women, the pel-vic area is considered private; additionally, for women, the chest is also regarded as a private part. As such, women are obligated to cover both the chest and its surrounding areas, as well as the pelvis and its surrounding areas.
The analysis above indicates that women should cover themselves from neck to ankle with attire that is neither tight nor transparent—this is the basic minimum requirement. If women choose to further cover their heads or even their faces to garner additional goodwill from God, that decision is commendable. However, as far as God’s obligatory commandments are concerned, they are as previously stated.
There is an additional directive for women concerning the wearing of jewelry or adornments around the chest area that might accentuate or draw attention to their chests. They are required to cover their bosoms with a garment and conceal other adornments from the public, except for those worn on the hands, feet, and face. In Quran 24:60, it is noted that older women are given the relaxation that allows them to remove their outer garments in public, provided that there is no deliberate in-tention to display their beauty and adornment.
The term used in the Quran 24:31 for a covering garment is “Bi’khumurihinna,” which is often translated by some as “head cov-ering.” Consequently, this verse is frequently cited to support the ar-gument that since God directs Muslim women to cover their bosoms with their head coverings, these coverings were already in use among Muslim women and should be recognized as an ordained duty by God. This interpretation leads many Muslims to believe that it is a divine obligation for women to have their heads covered at all times, which is not accurate. This case rests on weak footing because, firstly, even though the Quran, from 24:30 onwards, discusses the specific subject of how men and women should conduct themselves if they intermingle, it does not issue a clear instruction that women must cover their heads or faces at all times. There is not a single verse that directly states, “Oh believing women, you must ensure that you cover your heads (or your faces) at all times when interacting with others.”
Secondly, the Quran uses the Arabic phrase “Bi’ khumurihinna” when instructing women to cover the adornment or jewelry on their chests. There is no unambiguous linguistic or historical evidence in-dicating that the term “Bi’ khumurihinna” refers exclusively to a head covering. This term generally means anything that covers, not spe-cifically a head covering. In the specific context of this verse, it could denote any form of covering—an outer garment, a shawl, or even a head covering. However, it does not imply a specific type of cover. Thus, a more reasonable interpretation of the verse suggests that if a woman is wearing adornments—particularly in the chest area—she should cover these with a shawl or veil.68
So, in a nutshell, regarding women’s clothing, the Quran stipulates that if a woman is not wearing adornments, then she should be appro-priately covered from neck to ankle, clothing should not be tight or transparent in the slightest. That is the basic and absolutely compulsory obligation. If any woman chooses to go further by covering her head or face, that is commendable, but the compulsory requirement I just men-tioned is based on Quran 24:30-31. If a woman is wearing adornments that draw attention to her private areas, particularly the bosom, she must cover such adornments in public, except for those on her hands, feet, and face.
2. Verses from Surah Ahzab: Let’s divide this section into two subcategories.
A) Instructions meant exclusively for the Prophet’s (PBUH) wives. B) Instructions for ordinary Muslim women as a temporary mea- sure in an extraordinary situation.
I will explain these points briefly.
A) Instructions meant exclusively for the Prophet’s wives: There are specific verses in Surah Ahzab—primarily 33:32-33 and 33:53—that were revealed at a time when the struggle for Islam was at its peak. During this period, Muhammad’s (PBUH) opponents initiated a full-scale slander campaign against his household, specifically targeting his wives. Moreover, certain hypocrites were harassing Muslim women in Medina.
Keeping the entire context in mind, in the verses mentioned in Surah Ahzab, specific additional restrictions were placed on the wives of Muhammad (PBUH), emphasizing that these extra restrictions did not apply to ordinary Muslim women. Before imposing these additional restrictions, God asked them if they were unwilling to accept these ex-tra burdens—they could amicably separate from Muhammad (PBUH) without any bitterness and be like ordinary Muslim women. However, the wives of the Prophet chose to accept these extra restrictions. These restrictions include:
• They need to confine themselves to the house and must not step out without being accompanied by a male family member.
• If they need to speak with a man who is not an immediate family member, they must do so from behind a veil and use a stern tone.
• They cannot remarry after Muhammad’s (PBUH) passing.
• If someone is invited as a guest to eat at the Prophet’s (PBUH) house, they should arrive when the food is ready and leave immediately after finishing their meal. Guests are discouraged from staying seated for extended periods of time. Many scholars of Islam have deemed that the extra restrictions issued specifically for Muhammad’s (PBUH) wives should be taken as ideal values for all Muslim women. This view is flawed because the Quran specifically cautions that these extra restrictions are meant only for Muhammad’s (PBUH) wives in the context of an extraordinarily unique situation.
Many scholars within Islam maintain the viewpoint that the re-strictions mentioned are specific to the Prophet’s (PBUH) wives and are not intended for ordinary Muslim women. This view is supported by early Islamic thinkers like Imam Ahmed, Abu Dawood, Ibn e Qutaiba, Qazi Ayaz, Ibn e Battal, and Hisham ibn al-Kalbi. Likewise, contem-porary scholars such as Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Rashid Rida, Mohammad Sayas, and Abdul Haleem also uphold this perspective.
The Quran clarifies that these additional measures are specified not for ordinary Muslim women but rather for the wives of Muhammad (PBUH). Contemporary Islamic scholar Dr. Amir Gazdar shows in his book “Ahkaam al Hijab wal Ikhtalaat” that there is absolutely no evidence suggesting that ordinary Muslim women during the time of Muhammad (PBUH) considered these verses as ideal values for them-selves, nor is there any evidence indicating that these instructions were imposed upon them.
As we discussed before, the content of Hadith is more comprehensi-ble when it is interpreted in light of the Quran, rather than the other way around. There is a narration in Hadith literature where Muhammad’s (PBUH) wives avoid appearing in front of a blind companion of the Prophet (PBUH). Although this is considered a weak (Zaeef) narra-tion, such Hadiths—where the Prophet’s (PBUH) wives take extreme measures to remain out of public view—are often cited as evidence that Muslim women should not be visible to anyone except their immediate family, despite the Quran not issuing such a command. However, when these narrations are viewed through the lens of Surah Ahzab, it becomes clear that these incidents were not demonstrations of ideal values for all Muslim women to follow. In fact, these were efforts by Muhammad’s (PBUH) wives to adhere to specific extra restrictions, which were ex-clusive to them and not applicable to ordinary Muslim women.
B) Instructions for ordinary Muslim women as a temporary mea-sure in an extraordinary situation: A second citation in Surah Ahzab used to justify the face veil and hijab as divine obligations is verse 33:59. Here, Muslim women are instructed to cover themselves with a gar-ment when heading out. Some Muslim circles suggest that this implies covering everything except the hands, feet, and eyes. However, when this verse is read in context—from verses 58 to 62—it becomes evident that this instruction was issued as a temporary measure in an emergency situation, primarily to establish identity rather than as a moral directive for achieving purity. Let me elaborate.
The verses describe a scenario where Muslim women in Medina were being harassed and abused by some hypocrites. Before taking action against the perpetrators, the Muslim women were advised to cover themselves with a long garment. This was to distinguish them clearly as Muslim women, ensuring there was no ambiguity or excuse for anyone to claim they mistook them for someone else. Even if after these extreme measures the harassers do not stop, then Muhammad (PBUH) is instructed to capture them and execute them without mercy.
Hence, the only lesson to be taken from these verses is that if a sim-ilar situation arises in present times, then a similar temporary measure can be taken. However, the fact remains that these verses are about an emergency measure in an emergency situation and not an eternal com-mand for Muslim women to cover themselves head to toe at all times.
For detailed answers on this particular subject with references, please watch the video series titled “Response to 23 Questions – Veil (Parda) – Javed Ahmed Ghamidi” on the YouTube platform “Ghamidi Center of Islamic Learning.”
Question 12: Does Islam Mandate Gender Segregation?
It is completely logical to state that in order to avoid any potential sex-ual misconduct, men and women should not be secluded together. The Prophet (PBUH) firmly prohibited men and women from meeting in seclusion. According to a Hadith, he said:
Behold! A man is not alone with a woman but the third of them is the devil (Jami of Tirmidhi 2165).
However, when it comes to public gatherings—such as a dinner event for friends, a wedding, or men and women working or studying together in offices and universities—what does the Quran instruct in these scenarios?
One prevalent concept in Islam is gender segregation—the belief that men and women should be kept separate in public congregational areas. To my surprise, I found that the Quran actually states otherwise.
Firstly, men and women are not required to be segregated in the two holiest mosques of Islam in Mecca and Medina. Additionally, there is no gender segregation during the holy pilgrimages of Hajj and Umrah. Secondly, the Quran directly addresses the issue of gender segregation and states in 24:61 that when Muslims visit the homes of their family and friends for a feast, it is up to them to choose whether to eat separately or together. This verse indicates that men and women are permitted to mingle at both family events and gatherings of friends. Thus, it appears that the God of the Quran has not ordained gender segregation; rather, He has left this decision to the discretion of the Muslims, provided they adhere to the moral guidelines regarding gen-der interactions as set forth in Quran 24:30-31.
Question 13: Does Islam Prohibit Men and Women from Shaking Hands?
It is a matter of personal choice and cultural norms, and Islam does not issue specific commandments about refraining from shaking hands with the opposite gender.
In this regard, two popular Hadiths are presented. In one, Muhammad (PBUH) is reported to have said:
An iron nail being driven into one’s head is better than him touching a woman who is not lawful for him (Tabrani – al Mujam al Kabir, No: 16910).
When Hadith is understood through the Quran, and from the directives issued in Surah Nur regarding etiquettes in situations where men and women must interact, it becomes evident that the Hadith is ad-dressing the act of touching a woman in an inappropriate manner with wrongful intentions. Briefly touching a woman’s palm for a handshake as a cultural norm, or, for instance, a doctor checking a woman’s pulse for medical purposes, are not included in the meaning of this Hadith.
At this point, some of my Muslim friends often argue that if there isn’t a general prohibition on all forms of touch, then hugging and kissing the cheeks of the opposite sex as greetings should be acceptable. My response is that outside of marriage, all forms of sensual contact are forbidden in Islam. Therefore, any touch that is sensual in nature or could lead to sensual arousal should be avoided as a precaution.
Another hadith presented is Bukhari (No: 2564), where it is men-tioned that Muhammad (PBUH) never held a woman’s hand while tak-ing an oath of allegiance from her. This should not be interpreted as a directive against handshakes. Since the hand needs to be held for a pro-longed time during the oath of allegiance, it appears that Muhammad (PBUH) adopted this precautionary measure to avoid scandal, rather than issuing a directive against handshakes. Another argument presented is that there are no recorded in-stances of men shaking women’s hands during the time of Muhammad (PBUH). My response is that perhaps it simply wasn’t the custom of that culture. If the norm within a culture is to shake hands or fist bump as a form of greeting, Islam appears to have no objections to it.
A word of caution, though—Islam strictly forbids all kinds of inti-mate and sexual behaviors and actions except with one’s spouse. Hence, if someone believes that shaking hands with the opposite gender might arouse intimate or sexual feelings, then such a person must abstain from it.
Question 14: Does Islam require Muslim Men to Have Long Beards?
Important Note: For detailed answers on this subject with references, please watch the video series titled “Response to 23 Questions – Beard (Darhi) – Javed Ahmed Ghamidi” on the YouTube channel “Ghamidi Center of Islamic Learning.”
There is no passage in the Quran that specifically mandates Muslim men to keep a beard as a religious obligation.
If someone wishes to maintain a long beard out of love for Muhammad (PBUH) because he had a beard, that’s wonderful. However, the ques-tion is whether Islam makes it an obligation upon Muslim men to grow long beards.
The beard is termed the Sunnah of the Pophet solely because Muhammad (PBUH) himself had a beard. As we discussed before, Sunnah is the aspect of religion comprising actions that Muhammad (PBUH) sanctioned as part of Islam. Just because Muhammad (PBUH) wore something, rode a camel, or ate a specific type of food does not automatically make it a Sunnah or a part of the religion. For an action to be considered Sunnah, Muhammad (PBUH) must have sanctioned it and widely transmitted it as part of the religion.
Certain Hadiths are often interpreted to imply that Muhammad (PBUH) mandated long beards for Muslim men. In these narrations, Muhammad (PBUH) directs his followers to differentiate their facial hair from that of the polytheists and the People of the Book by growing their beards long and trimming their mustaches (Sahih Muslim, Nos. 603 and 625; Sahih Bukhari, No. 5893).
Since this Hadith does not provide the context of why Muhammad (PBUH) made his statement, we must analyze the matter in light of the Quran. When Hadith is viewed from the perspective of the Quran, as it should be, the context becomes clear. Let me explain briefly.
The monks, among people of the book—Christians and Jews—even up until today, do not trim their beards or mustaches. Their long mus-taches usually cover the entire lip area, which is visibly against the norms of physical cleanliness, especially when eating. In contrast, polytheists, particularly their leaders, used to trim their beards short and keep long mustaches with tips bent upwards as a sign of pride. This practice is still prevalent in many cultures today, especially in South Asia. The Quran commands Muslims to pursue physical cleanliness and to abstain from all forms of arrogance. Therefore, when these Hadiths are interpreted in the context of the Quran, it becomes clear that Muhammad (PBUH) provided these guidelines to promote physical cleanliness and eliminate any signs of arrogance in one’s appearance.
The correct perspective on this matter is that maintaining a long beard is not considered Sunnah; rather, trimming the mustache is the Sunnah. Islam does not mandate that Muslims maintain any specific style of facial hair. However, if a Muslim man chooses to grow long facial hair, keeping the mustache short aligns with the Sunnah of the Prophet. The rationale behind this practice is to promote cleanliness and avoid any displays of arrogance.
Simply put, Islam does not require the adherence to a long beard. You are free to shave your face or maintain any length of beard you de-sire. However, if you choose to keep a long beard, Islam obligates you to keep your mustache short.
Question 15: What are Some Misconceptions about Muhammad’s (PBUH) First Revelation and the Cave of Hira?
Important Note: For detailed answers to this subject with references, please watch the video series titled “Response to 23 Questions – Pehli Wahi ka Waqia, Ghar e Hira,” by Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, available on the YouTube channel “Ghamidi Center of Islamic Learning.”
The popular story about Muhammad’s (PBUH) first revelation states that before receiving the revelation:
– Muhammad (PBUH) used to visit the Cave of Hira in pursuit of enlightenment and to contemplate existential matters.
– He was in great turmoil after receiving the revelation, unsure of what had happened to him, and often contemplated suicide because of the ordeal until Gabriel intervened.
This entire story is based on a narration from a single chain of nar-rators found in Bukhari No: 6982. In this narration, Ibn Shahab Zuhri reports from Urwa bin Zubair, who was the nephew of Muhammad’s (PBUH) wife, Aisha (RA). According to Zubair, he heard this narra-tion from Aisha (RA).
There are numerous issues with the narration of Ibn e Shahab Zuhri. Let us briefly discuss these problems.
1) Ibn e Shahab Zuhri is known to report hearsay:For instance, the entire episode of Muhammad (PBUH) attempting suicide is recounted by Zuhri as information that reached him without a continuous chain of narrators.
2) Quran says that Muhammad (PBUH) never pursued en-lightenment or religious knowledge: According to the narrative, Muhammad (PBUH) practiced “Tahannus” in the cave of Hira, which many interpret as meditation and seeking answers to the larger ques-tions of life. However, Quran 28:86 and Quran 10:16 clearly indicate that Muhammad (PBUH) was not seeking religious knowledge or enlightenment and was not known to preach about these matters.
Then the question arises— if Muhammad (PBUH) was not making efforts to attain divine knowledge or enlightenment through medita-tion, then what kind of worship does this “Tahannus” mentioned in the narration refer to? What was Muhammad (PBUH) doing in the cave of Hira during his visits? I will soon explain what Tahannus actually means.
3) Experience of the first revelation of Moses (PBUH) and Muhammad (PBUH) cannot be so opposingly different:In the Quran, verse 73:15, Muhammad (PBUH) is recognized as a Prophet akin to Moses (PBUH). The incident of Moses’s (PBUH) first revela-tion is described in the Quran in verses 20:9-36 and 27:7-12. In these passages, God reassures Moses (PBUH) by telling him that messengers should not fear in the presence of God, and Moses (PBUH) is clearly informed about what is happening to him and what his mission entails.
On the other hand, when Muhammad (PBUH) was contacted for the first time, he had no idea what was happening and was terrified to the core. If Muhammad (PBUH) is a Messenger like Moses (PBUH), why then was the first contact so clear and calm for Moses (PBUH), yet so confusing and terrifying for Muhammad (PBUH)? Why does God reveal all the details of his role and mission to Moses (PBUH), assuring him that Messengers should not fear in God’s presence, yet Muhammad (PBUH) is left feeling absolutely terrified and confused, with no understanding of what is happening?
4) Ibn e Hisham does not take the popular narration of Ibn e Shahab Zuhri in his biography: Ibn Hisham is one of the earliest bi-ographers of Muhammad (PBUH), and he based his work on an earlier biography written by Ibn Ishaq. When Ibn Hisham’s book reaches the point of Muhammad’s first revelation, he only includes Zuhri’s nar-ration up to the point where Zuhri states that Muhammad (PBUH) started to see true dreams before the first revelation and began to pre-fer isolation. After this, Ibn Hisham introduces a different narration from another chain of narrators to explain the incident of the first revelation of Muhammad (PBUH). This alternative narration makes more sense than Zuhri’s, as it is free from the discrepancies mentioned in the above three points. In his biography, in the chapter titled “How was Muhammad (PBUH) given Prophethood,” Ibn Hisham quotes a narration from Wahab ibn Kaisaan who heard it from Abdullah bin Zubair, the nephew of Aisha (RA), who in turn heard it from Ubaid bin Umair bin Qatada al Laisi.
Let us now briefly analyze the narration by Wahab ibn ul Kaisaan utilized by Ibn e Hisham and examine how it is more logical.
Analysis of narration of Wahab ibn e Kaisaan and why it is free from all discrepancies present in Zuhri’s narration: Hisham writes that Muhammad (PBUH) would retreat to the cave of Hira for Tahannuf—a correction of the word Tahannus mentioned in Zuhri’s narration. Hisham clarifies that this was Aitikaaf during the month of Ramadan, a ritual involving fasting and worship. Muhammad (PBUH) participated in this worship as a follower of Deen e Hanif, a tradition of beliefs and practices of Abraham (PBUH) that was prevalent in Arabia. Muhammad (PBUH) often took his wife and children to the mountains with him, and at the end of this ritual worship, they would feed the poor. This narrative continues, describing that in the year of revelation, Muhammad (PBUH) began to experience prophetic dreams. During this significant year, while practicing Itikaf in the Cave of Hira, he had a dream in which a figure appeared, presenting him with a book wrapped in silk cloth. This figure instructed him to recite a few verses from the book, which would later become the first five verses of Surah Alaq. Upon awakening, Muhammad (PBUH) was uncertain of the dream’s meaning, yet he vividly remembered the verses. He then stepped out of the cave and saw the same figure from his dream appearing on the horizon. This figure clearly stated that Muhammad (PBUH) had been appointed the Messenger of God and introduced himself as the angel Gabriel, leaving him with no sense of fear or uncertainty.
The narration further explains that Muhammad (PBUH) continued to gaze at Gabriel until a group of men, who had been sent by Khadija (RA) from her camp at the base of the mountain, called out to him. Muhammad (PBUH) recounted the incident to Khadija (RA). There is no mention of any panic or turmoil in this exchange. Khadija (RA) then left to share the details of this encounter with her cousin, Warqah bin Naufal, who was a Christian scholar. Meanwhile, Muhammad (PBUH) returned to the Cave of Hira to complete his Aitikaaf. After finishing his Aitikaaf, he went to the Kaaba to perform the ritual Tawaaf. It was during this Tawaaf that he encountered Warqah, who reassured him that he had indeed been chosen as the Messenger of God.
In the sequence of events narrated by Wahab ibn ul Kaisaan, there is neither fear nor confusion and certainly no instances of suicide attempts. Furthermore, Muhammad (PBUH) did not partake in enigmatic quests for enlightenment in the Cave of Hira. Instead, he engaged in ritual fasting and worship in isolation (Aitikaaf), following the tradition of Deen e Hanif—a set of beliefs and practices of Abraham (PBUH) ad-hered to by many in Arabia at that time. This version of events appears more credible and lacks the discrepancies present in the narration by Ibn e Shahab Zuhri.
Question 16: What Was The Age Of Aisha (RA) When She Married Muhammad (PBUH)?
Note: For more information on this topic, please refer to the chapter titled “Syeda Aisha (RA) Ki Umar” in Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s book “Mizan.”
It is a commonly held belief that Aisha (RA) was six years old when she married Muhammad (PBUH) and that the marriage was consummated when she was nine. This view is supported by narrations found in Hadith literature, such as Sahih al-Bukhari (No: 5134, and 70). However, there are also authentic hadiths within the same literature that clearly contradict the notion that Aisha (RA) was between six to nine years old at the time of her marriage to Muhammad (PBUH). Let’s examine some of these examples.
Child marriage goes against the clear injunctions of the Quran: Quran 4:6 states that those responsible for the wealth of orphans should evaluate and assess the orphans until they reach the age of marriage. If they are found to be mature and sound in judgment, then their wealth should be handed over to them.
Thus, Quran 4:6 clearly equates the age of marriage to an age where a person is mature enough to make sound judgments about their life and finances. This unequivocally negates the concept of child marriage.
Now, let us examine the Hadith literature which firmly establishes that Aisha (RA) was not 6 years old when she married Muhammad (PBUH). Analysis of Hadith Literature which negates the idea that Aisha (R.A) was 6 to 9 when she married Muhammad (PBUH):
1) After Khadija (R.A) passed away, Muhammad (PBUH) was left all alone to take care of the household and children along with the pressure of performing duties as a Prophet of God. Khaula bint e Hakim, who was a close companion of Muhammad (PBUH), suggested that he should remarry so someone can take care of the household and the children. For this purpose, she suggested two names—one of Sauda bint e Zamah (R.A), who was an elderly widow, and the other name was of Aisha (R.A). This narration puts a huge question mark on Aisha (R.A) being only 6 when married to Muhammad (PBUH) and 9 when the marriage was consummated. Muhammad’s (PBUH) own daughter Fatima (R.A) is said to be around 5 to 10 years old at the time of the marriage proposal to Aisha (R.A). How can Khaula suggest a 6-year-old to take care of Muhammad’s (PBUH) children and the household?69
2) As per early biographers of Muhammad (PBUH) like Ibn e Ishaq and Ibn e Hisham, Aisha (R.A) was one of the earliest people who accepted Islam. Ibn e Ishaq is quoted to have said that Aisha (R.A) converted to Islam when only 18 people had accepted Islam, and Ibn e Hisham says that Aisha (R.A) ac- cepted Islam at the same time as people like Abu Ubayda Jarrah (R.A). Abu Ubayda Jarrah and other early converts converted to Islam around 611-612 AD, while the Prophet (PBUH) married Aisha (R.A) in 620 AD. The question arises here: if Aisha (R.A) was 6 years old at the time of marriage to Muhammad (PBUH), then technically she wasn’t even born in 612 AD. Even if she was born with an error margin of 1 or 2 years, she would be an infant in no position to accept the message of Islam. This doesn’t make sense.70,71
3) According to tradition of al-Bukhari, Chapter “The Compilation of Quran” – (No: 4876 and 4993), Aisha (R.A) says that she was a “Jaariyah” when Quran 54:46 was revealed. Jaariyah in classical Arabic means a young girl around adolescence or older.72 Quran 54:46 was revealed in 617 AD, five years before Muhammad’s (PBUH) migration to Medina in 622 AD. If Aisha was 6 years old when marrying Muhammad in 620 AD, that means she was a 3-year-old baby when 54:46 was revealed and she was in no way a Jaariyah!
4) Another set of Hadiths is presented to support the claim that Aisha (RA) was a child when she married Muhammad (PBUH). These traditions include the Sunan of ibn e Majah, No: 1982, Sahih of Muslim, No: 117, Sahih of Muslim, No: 83, and Sahih of Bukhari, No: 157. In these narrations, Aisha (RA) mentions she played with dolls in the presence of Muhammad (PBUH). At first glance, one might assume that Aisha (RA) must have been a child since typically only children play with dolls. However, another authentic hadith challenges the as-sumption that Aisha (RA) was a child during this time, sug-gesting instead that her enjoyment of making and playing with dolls extended into her mid to late teens. Allow me to explain briefly. Those who assert that Aisha (RA) was six years old when she married Muhammad (PBUH) refer to the year 620 AD as the year of the marriage. A credible narration in Abi Dawood recounts that Muhammad (PBUH) discovered Aisha’s (RA) dolls in a closet after his return from either the Battle of Tabuk or Khaybar. He noticed the dolls behind a curtain and asked, “What are these?” Aisha (RA) responded, “These are my dolls.” Muhammad (PBUH) then asked about another item, to which Aisha (RA) explained that it was a horse with two wings (Sunan of Abu Dawood, Nos: 4932, 160, and 4914). The narrative recounts that the incident where Muhammad (PBUH) first discovered Aisha’s (RA) dolls occurred either after the Battle of Tabuk or the Battle of Khyber. The Battle of Tabuk took place in 630 AD; therefore, if Aisha was 6 years old when she married Muhammad (PBUH), she would have been 16 at that time. Conversely, if this event transpired after the Battle of Khyber in 628 AD, Aisha (RA) would have been 14 years old. Thus, assuming Aisha (RA) was 6 years old at the time of her marriage to Muhammad (PBUH) in 620 AD, she was between 14 to 16 years old when Muhammad (PBUH) first encountered her dolls. Her mention of playing with dolls in Muhammad’s (PBUH) presence should not be regarded sim-ply as a recollection of her childhood, but rather as a reference to events occurring in her mid to late teens. It is plausible that Aisha (RA) continued her affection for creating dolls and other artifacts and engaging with them into her late teens. Similar interests persist among many young people today, who often continue their enjoyment of dolls and action figures into their late teens and beyond.
Estimating the Correct Age of Aisha (RA) When She Married Muhammad (PBUH): At this Juncture, The Question ariseswhat was the actual age of Aisha (RA) when she married Muhammad (PBUH)? Within the Hadith literature, there is clear evidence that Aisha (RA) was 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage to Muhammad (PBUH) and approximately 18 or 19 when the marriage was consum-mated. Allow me to explain briefly.
We know that Aisha (RA) was ten years younger than her sister Asma (RA). Asma (RA) is said to have been born 27 years before Muhammad’s (PBUH) migration to Medina in 622 AD. This places Asma’s (RA) birth around 595 AD, and consequently, Aisha (RA) was born around 605 AD. This information establishes Aisha’s (RA) age as approximately 15 or 16 when she was married to Muhammad (PBUH) in 620 AD and 18 or 19 when her marriage was consummated in 623 AD.73
Additionally, Asma (RA) is commonly known to have died in 692 AD at the age of 97 to 98. This means that Asma (RA) was 25 to 26 years old in 620 AD. Hence, if Aisha (RA) was 10 years younger than Asma (RA), then Aisha was 15 to 16 years old in 620 AD when she married Muhammad (PBUH).
Hadith literature is a complicated science: This field of knowl-edge is vast, containing narrations that some scholars deem authentic while others consider weak. It is possible to find material supporting whichever stance one prefers in these matters. Ibn Kathir serves as a significant example of the flexible use of Hadith literature. On one hand, he accepts Hadiths that establish Asma (RA) as being 10 years older than Aisha (RA), which would imply that Aisha (RA) was 16 when she married Muhammad (PBUH) in 620 AD. However, Ibn Kathir also accepts those Hadiths that claim Aisha (RA) was 6 years old at the time of her marriage and agrees with the notion that she was 6.74 This illustrates the complex nature of Hadith literature. The Hadith literature that is used to support the idea that Aisha (RA) was 6 years old when she married Muhammad (PBUH), this same Hadith literature also contains ample material to support the claim that she was 16 years old at the time of her marriage to Muhammad (PBUH) and 19 when the marriage was consummated. This is why it is extremely important to interpret Hadith through the lens of the Quran and not the other way around.
Possible causes of the mix-up of Aisha’s age: Then the question arises: what could be the possible cause of the existence of narrations in Hadith literature that state Aisha (RA) was 6 years old at the time of marriage to Muhammad (PBUH) when the same Hadith literature contains much information that thoroughly negates this idea? It prob-ably has something to do with how Arabs pronounce their numbers. In Arabic, 6 is pronounced “Sittah” and 16 as “Sittatah ‘Asharah.” Similarly, 9 is pronounced “Tis‘ah” and 19 as “tis‘ahta ‘Asharah.” A parallel in English numbers would be saying 16 as “Six-Ten” and 19 as “Nine-Ten.” It is possible that either Aisha (RA) or later hadith trans-mitters took the decade part as something everyone already knew and didn’t record it. For example, if it is already understood that a person is talking about the 1900s and he mentions that such-and-such event happened in 83, you automatically know the person means that the event happened in 1983, not 83 BC or 83 AD. Thus, it is conceivable that either Aisha (RA) or later transmitters were simply highlighting the exact year of the marriage while assuming that the term “Ashara” or decade part is already known.
Question 17: What Is The Story Of The Creation Of Humankind According To The Quran, And Did The Children Of Adam And Eve (Peace Be Upon Them) Commit Incest To Expand The Human Population?
The Quran discusses various aspects of human creation. In one verse, it asserts that humans are created from water, while in another, it claims that we are molded from clay. Because the Quran states that humans are made from clay, ancient scholars often conceived that God sculpted the first human as a statue and breathed life into it.
There are some weak narrations attributed to Muhammad (PBUH) that are used to support this idea. However, when studied with an open mind, it appears that the Quran presents a very different story about the emergence of modern humans, a story that seems to be supported by what we know about our origins.
Analysis of Quran 32:7-9 to Understand Human Origins: The Quran mentions human origins in various passages, but specif-ically in Quran 32:7-9, which outlines the stages of human development in a sequence. “God started the process of creation of humankind from clay. Then He made humankind’s descendants from a meager fluid – then He fashioned and perfected them and after that He had a spirit from the Divine breathed into it. He granted you hearing, sight and intellect” (Quran 32:7-9).
Along with the previously mentioned verse, Quran 21:30 asserts that all living things were created from water, while Quran 25:54 states that humans were created from water. When viewed in conjunction with the other two verses mentioned above, Quran 32:7-9 helps divide the story of human creation into three stages.
Stage 1 – Earliest ancestors of humans came out directly from the earth’s crust: The process of human creation began in muddy pools of water, with the primordial human-animal forms emerging from the earth, akin to an organism emerging from an egg buried in the ground. According to Quranic verses, one can infer that the first ancestors of humans—initially just in animal form, devoid of a soul—came di-rectly from the earth. This process appears to mirror what transpires in a mother’s womb, taking place within the earth’s crust, leading to the creation of primordial animal forms of humans and possibly other species as well.
It is neither magical nor incomprehensible. Consider this: we con-sume the same raw materials found in nature, such as amino acids, iron, and calcium. Remarkably, there exists a factory within the female body that transforms these basic ingredients into living organisms. The Quran suggests that this same process occurred within the earth, transforming the basic ingredients of life found in mud and water into living organisms.
Does the idea of primordial animal forms emerging from the earth sound ridiculous to you? It shouldn’t, because this concept has historical precedence. Take, for instance, the “Cambrian Explosion,” a remarkable event documented in the fossil records. This occurred approximately 500 million years ago, marking a period when most of the major animal groups abruptly made their appearance in the fossil record. I am not suggesting that primordial human forms emerged during the Cambrian Explosion. Rather, I aim to illustrate that events such as the Cambrian Explosion support the possibility—scientifically speaking—that the Quranic depiction of the primordial biological ancestors of humans emerging from the earth near muddy pools of water might not be as far-fetched as it seems.
Stage 2 – Humans’ animal form went through biological evolu-tion possibly over many generations: The Quran states that once the animal-like human ancestors emerged from the earth, their progeny was produced through the usual means of sexual reproduction. Then, as Quran 32:9 suggests, the descendants of this human-animal form underwent a process of gradual development, possibly spanning many generations, until they reached perfection.
It can be inferred that the Quran supports interspecies evolution by stating that primordial forms of animal species emerged directly from the earth. Subsequently, they reproduced through biological means and underwent a process of gradual development over time. Indeed, evidence exists of primitive humanoid creatures such as Ramapithecus, Australopithecus, and Homo erectus. Moreover, the fossil record in-dicates that biologically modern Homo sapiens evolved as a result of gradual development from these earlier primitive versions.
It is a consensus among scientists that the earliest known human ancestor, the most ancient known primitive biological humanoid crea-ture, existed 4.2 million years ago.75 Till about 300,000 years ago, primitive humanoids had evolved into archaic Homo sapiens—the di-rect ancestors of modern Homo sapiens—and about 160,000 years ago, the first group of biologically modern Homo sapiens appeared. So, the Quran does not support Darwinian evolution from a single cell; however, it does seem to endorse the concept of interspecies evo-lution, positing that the primordial ancestors of these species emerged directly from the earth.
Stage 3 – Once biological evolution was complete – the soul was transferred to humans: Finally, Quran 32:9 states that once humans reached the stage of biological completion, they were endowed with the soul, after which they became individuals distinguished by pronounced intellect, aesthetics, and morality. This notion is also supported by what we understand about our reality—let me briefly explain.
Once the human species evolved into modern Homo sapiens around 160,000 years ago, there was a notable shift in behavior. There are two predominant theories regarding the emergence of modern human behavior. The first suggests that this behavioral modernity developed gradually over a long period. The second posits that there was a sudden shift around 50,000 years ago. In either scenario, it is widely agreed that after humans reached biological modernity, they soon exhibited signs of behavioral modernity. This included practices such as burying their dead, creating art, adorning themselves with ornaments, and construct-ing temples for worship.76 Hence, it seems plausible that humans achieved biological modernity, and subsequently, a transfer of the soul could have sparked these behavioral changes as well..
Did the children of Adam and Eve (PBUT) commit incest to expand the human population? No, because according to the Quran, Adam and Eve (PBUT) were not the only humans in a world devoid of others. In the narrative presented by the Quran, biologically modern humans existed but were akin to animal forms, lacking souls. God selected two individuals from these humans and bestowed upon them the divine essence known as the human soul. It can be inferred that the offspring of Adam and Eve (PBUT) also received this divine essence. As the children of Adam and Eve (PBUT) reproduced with other members of their species who did not possess the soul, they transmitted this divine essence to their descendants. Over many thousands of years, this resulted in the entire human population possessing it.
To further summarize, the Quran states that humankind’s ini-tial biological forms originated from the earth. This is reminiscent of events such as the Cambrian explosion, which shows in our biological history periods where complex life forms appear to suddenly emerge. Additionally, the Quran explains that these primitive human forms reproduced sexually and underwent extensive biological evolution over numerous generations—a claim that seems to be supported by the fossil record. Ultimately, the Quran describes how, once the human biological form was fully developed, God selected two individuals and imbued them with souls. This assertion aligns with evidence from our history when biologically modern humans began to exhibit behavioral modernity.
A brief note about the Quran’s idea of the brain vs. soul and why it seems true: The Quran supports the concept of the duality of the human body and soul. It states that the body and brain are creations of this world, while the soul—the “Me” that experiences everything—is not of this earthly realm and belongs to a higher dimension. The notion that the brain and soul are distinct is underscored by observations of the brain’s separate areas where environmental inputs are processed. However, there appears to be no specific location in the brain where these inputs converge into a singular unified experience that is Me!
It seems that the soul impacts the brain and vice versa, as the mind can influence the material brain, with mere thoughts capable of altering the brain’s physical structure. We also know that the material brain can change mind, as damage to certain parts of the brain can alter our personalities and views. We have discussed this in detail in the section addressing the mind versus brain debate.
Question 18: Were Adam And Eve (PBUT) In Heaven Before Coming To Earth?
The Quran does not state anywhere that Adam and Eve (PBUT) were born in heaven and then banished to Earth. Instead, it mentions that they were in Jannah, which translates to “garden” in English. Since Jannah is also a term used in Islam for Paradise, alongside other terms like Bahisht and Firdaus, it is commonly understood that Adam and Eve’s presence in Jannah indicates that they were created in Paradise and subsequently banished to Earth.
There are many reasons to infer from the Quran that Adam and Eve (PBUT) were created here on Earth.
Reason 1: The Quran states in 2:30 that God proclaimed His plan to create humans on Earth as successors to Him, indicating that God intended for humans to be created on this planet. Additionally, nu-merous verses in the Quran support this, stating humans were created from water and mud. For example, Quran 32:7-9 further elaborates on this concept.
Reason 2: Secondly, Quran 14:48 states that the world of the here-after, including Paradise and Hell, has yet to be formed. The verse explains that when the time comes to unleash judgment on humankind, this world and the entire universe will transform into a new world where people will be judged and recompensed for their deeds. Thus, the world of the hereafter, including Paradise, is yet to materialize.
These verses clearly imply that Adam and Eve (PBUT) were created here on Earth. The word “Jannah” used in verses like 2:35, relating to Adam and Eve (PBUT), refers simply to a garden or a forest abundant in food, water, and shelter, not the heavenly Paradise.
Another reason why many believe that Adam and Eve (PBUT) were in Paradise in heaven stems from interpretations of verses like 2:36, where Adam and Eve (PBUT) are told to “Ihbitu” or “go down” from the garden they were in. This term “Ihbitu” does not imply that Adam and Eve (PBUT) were instructed to descend from heaven to earth; rather, this word is also found elsewhere in the Quran, such as in 2:61, to simply mean travel in or out from. Thus, considering the entire context mentioned above, Adam and Eve (PBUT) in 2:36 are being told to leave the garden rather than descend from heaven to earth.
It should be noted that the Quran confirms the existence of a place called “Jannat ul Mawa” in 53:15. Additionally, another verse in the Quran, 32:19, suggests that it is either a material or a spiritual world, serving as a welcoming place for the truly righteous souls—a place where they are kept and given a certain type of life before the final resurrection on the Day of Judgment.
Question 19: What Was The Forbidden Tree That Adam And Eve (PBUT) Ate From, And Why Was This Tree Forbidden?
It is evident from Quran 7:20-22 that Adam and Eve (PBUT) were pre-vented from engaging in sexual relations. This passage states that Satan offered them a suggestion to reveal their hidden shame. Further, the verse states that after eating from the tree, they became aware of their sexu-ality—their private parts—and began to cover themselves with leaves. Despite being husband and wife, this restriction was imposed on them as a test to illustrate the consequences of disobeying God.
Question 20: Why Are Men Allowed Four Marriages, And Why Are Women Not Allowed Multiple Marriages?
God created Eve for Adam (Peace Be Upon Them) and not four, clearly indicating that the ideal relationship in God’s view is one husband and one wife. Moreover, in Quran 4:3, where the permission for four marriages is mentioned, the God of the Quran discourages polygamy and actually promotes monogamy. Let me explain briefly.
Quran 4:3 states:
Give the orphans their wealth with utmost honesty and do not exchange your possessions for their wealth nor cheat them by mixing their wealth with your own, for this would indeed be a great sin. If you fear you will not be able to take proper care of the orphans, marry women of your choice, one, two, three, or four, but do justice between them. And if you fear you shall fail to do justice with them, then marry only one … this is better for you as you are less likely to commit injustice this way.
Conditional allowance of polygamy to men: First, it was a norm for men to marry multiple women 1400 years ago in almost all cul-tures, including the Arabs. It is still a norm in many societies today. Therefore, it is not the Quran that initiated the practice of polygamy; it was already very prevalent in almost all human societies. The appro-priate perspective is that the Quran did not prohibit the already existing practice of men marrying multiple times but instead placed a limit on it to a maximum of four.
Secondly, Quran 4:3 acknowledges the difficulty of doing justice between multiple wives and thus recommends that men marry only one. It is evident that even in situations where there is a genuine need for men to marry multiple times, the God of the Quran strongly advises them to marry only one.
So, the Quran permits men to marry more than once but also im-poses a condition that they must treat their wives justly—this includes both financial and emotional justice. There are situations where it might be justified for a man to marry more than once. For example, if a woman cannot bear children and the man desires offspring, or if the woman suffers from a disease that prevents her from fulfilling the physical needs of her husband. In such cases, it appears morally justified and closer to fairness for the man to marry again without the consent of the first wife.
Another scenario might involve a man who does not encounter any of the previously mentioned need-based challenges but wishes to marry multiple times simply because he desires multiple women. In this case, justice requires that each woman be informed beforehand about his intentions to marry multiple times, and each woman must consent to this arrangement before marrying such a person. If the woman is not informed beforehand in this specific situation, it constitutes a gross and blatant act of emotional injustice. It is important to note that any form of injustice—whether financial or emotional—is strictly prohibited in Islam.
Furthermore, Islam grants women the right to stipulate in the mar-riage contract that the husband will not take another wife. If he violates this condition, the marriage will be considered annulled.77
It is a fact that some men have exploited this verse to cater to their own lusts. It is crucial that measures are taken to ensure that men have justified reasons for marrying more than once. States can enact laws to regulate the permission of polygamy and require a man to justify his reasons in court if he wishes to marry more than once. Women cannot have multiple husbands: Islam views marriage as an institution—in fact, it sees marriage as the most important institution—and an institution can only have one head. Islam designates the man as the head of the family institution since he is given more responsibility – especially the financial responsibility.
Women are not allowed to practice polyandry for the following reasons: A country can only have one head, such as a Prime Minister or President, yet it may have many ministers. Similarly, a company can have only one CEO, yet many managing directors. In the same way, a family in Islam can have one head, who is the husband, and potentially multiple wives, but not vice versa. No institution can thrive with multi-ple heads; therefore, since Islam views marriage and family as an insti-tution and designates the man as the head of this institution, it does not allow a woman to marry multiple men. However, the God of the Quran has insisted that the ideal family should consist of one husband and one wife, exemplified by Adam (PBUH) having one wife, and Quran 4:3 also insists that men should marry only one woman; otherwise, they risk committing injustice.
Thus, if a woman is in a justified situation where she needs to marry another man, the only solution is for her to leave her husband to marry this other man..
Question 21: Why Are All Forms Of Sexual Behavior Strictly Prohibited Outside The Marriage Between A Man And A Woman, And Why Are They Considered Major Sins And Serious Crimes?
Human beings are not merely physical creatures; we are psycholog-ical, emotional, and spiritual beings as well. When a baby is born, this completely helpless newborn requires constant long-term care and nurturing in all these aspects, potentially extending over a decade. The Abrahamic God has ordained that the family unit, comprising a man and a woman—a father and a mother—is the institution created by God Himself. This institution is not only for bringing new human beings into the world but, more importantly, for providing the essential long-term physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual care a child needs until reaching maturity. Similarly, as humans reach old age, they too require physical and emotional support, and a stable family is the ideal institution to provide this care. Even the best old age homes can-not compare to the emotional fulfillment a stable family can offer. For this reason, the Quran goes to great lengths to protect the institution of marriage and the family.
The entire ritual of marriage is designed to provide a solid founda-tion for the relationship by encouraging both the man and the woman to invest deeply in the institution. In the presence of their family and society, they publicly proclaim their full responsibility for each other. Both parties promise, with God as their witness, to remain honest and faithful in the union they are entering.
There are many elements necessary for a strong marriage, such as mutual respect and a bond of trust. However, I believe that sexual fidelity is arguably the most crucial aspect of a stable and enduring marriage. It is often considered the foundation upon which a marriage stands. To protect the institution of family, the God of the Quran has decreed that all kinds of sexual behaviors and actions must be strictly confined to marriage. Any sexual behavior or action outside of marriage is viewed as a punishable offense in Islam and a major sin that threatens one’s salvation on Judgment Day. Therefore, whether one is married or unmarried, straight or homosexual, engaging in sexual behavior with anyone outside of a heterosexual marriage is strictly prohibited and regarded as a major sin and a severe crime, carrying serious worldly con-sequences if discovered. Many verses in the Quran, such as Quran 7:33, categorize sexual relations outside of marriage as a major sin. Persisting on this sin risks eternal damnation because it directly compromises the societal institution, created by God Himself, intended for the well-being of children and the elderly.
It makes sense for a newborn to receive such complex, long-term, dedicated care, and for the well-being of the elderly, no other institution can replace a stable family. Indeed, a stable family provides the optimal infrastructure for the physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual nourishment of a child from infancy to adulthood. It makes sense to restrict all types of sexual behavior and actions within the confines of marriage to strengthen the family institution. It is indeed true that in any society where sexual and intimate behavior outside of marriage is normalized, the institution of family is likely to suffer.
It is a well-known fact that unstable families and broken homes have a devastating impact on children. There is a plethora of research available indicating that children from such families have extremely deep-rooted and long-term negative effects on their personalities.
A brief note about sexual fidelity in marriage and chemicals in our body: There is a chemical rationale for strictly limiting all sexual and intimate behavior to the confines of marriage to strengthen this institution. Dopamine and serotonin, substances in the body that elicit feelings of pleasure and happiness, are released during various activities such as exercise, completing tasks, and eating. A major source of these chemical releases is sexual and emotional gratification.
Concerning sexual, physical, and emotional intimacy, if these sub-stances are released exclusively during interactions with one’s spouse, it can significantly strengthen the marital relationship. Conversely, releas-ing these chemicals through other means—such as viewing pornogra-phy, sexually admiring others, or engaging in physical intimacy outside the marriage—can dilute the special bond with one’s spouse. Engaging in such behaviors, which also trigger dopamine and serotonin, may soon make the relationship with the spouse seem less appealing, overshad-owed by the intense rewards from these other sources.
Hence, among other reasons, even the nature of chemicals in our bodies demands that we strictly limit all kinds of sexual behaviors and actions toward our spouse. This strengthens the marital bond and in-creases the likelihood of creating a stable family institution.
Question 22: Why Is The Husband Given A Rank Higher Than The Wife? Does That Mean Men Are Superior To Women In Islam?
Men are absolutely not superior to women in Islam. Quran 33:73 in-dicates that both men and women are equal in the sight of God, and Quran 49:13 clearly states that humankind was created from a male and a female, with the most noble in the sight of God being the one who is the most righteous and God-conscious. In Islam, it is neither gender, ethnicity, bloodline, race, nor color that determines superiority but righteousness and God-consciousness. Women and men are equal in the eyes of the God of the Quran; however, within the institution of marriage, husbands are given a rank higher than their wives for the following reasons.
Just like the institution of the state or any other organization, Islam views marriage as a pivotal institution, thereby establishing specific rights and responsibilities for its members. God commands that both men and women should physically and emotionally devote themselves solely and sincerely to their spouses. If the wife earns an income, it is her own wealth, and she is not obligated to contribute it to the family’s upkeep. However, the husband bears the responsibility for the financial maintenance of the family. Therefore, if the family’s rightful expenses are not met, the husband is solely blamed and held accountable. Due to this greater degree of responsibility, the husband is accorded a higher rank in the family’s decision-making process. In the event of a deadlock on issues, the husband is granted the deciding vote.
It is important to note that Islam allocates a larger share of inher-itance to men, guided by the principle that men have been given the responsibility for the financial upkeep of the family.
This is not gender discrimination, as previously mentioned because men and women are considered equal in the eyes of God. It is only when entering into the contract of marriage that the roles and responsibilities assigned to the offices of husband and wife establish a hierarchy. The husband is burdened with heavier responsibilities; therefore, he holds a higher rank in family decision-making. Similarly, within the same family institution, the mother is given a higher rank than the father concerning the children (Sahih of Muslim, No: 6181). Thus, it is not about gender but rather the rights and responsibilities within the mar-riage institution.
It does make sense—whether it is a state, a corporate company, or, in this case, a family—whoever holds the higher responsibility should also wield greater influence in the decision-making process. It also makes sense to put financial responsibility on the man because, firstly, men are not bound by the physical requirements of pregnancy and breastfeeding children. Secondly, both in humanity’s past and present, apart from very few exceptions in modern times, earning a living has mostly been an extremely physically strenuous task for which men have been deemed more suited. Additionally, the protection of the family or country from external threats was and still is seen as a man’s job since militaries are comprised mostly of men, and, before the age of guns, protecting the family or tribe was a very physically demanding task intended for men.
Hence, it seems reasonable that, exceptions aside, the Quran estab-lishes a general principle of placing more responsibility on the husband and, consequently, assigns him a higher rank in family decision-making.
A question arises: if a woman assumes the financial responsibility of the family, can she become the head of the family institution? I believe she can. If a woman officially takes on the full financial responsibility of the family and the man relinquishes it to her, then she can indeed be the head of the family institution.
Question 23: Does The Quran Provide A Political System?
Yes, Islam prescribes certain punishments and authorizes Muslim gov-ernments to collect Zakat tax. In addition to this, Islam establishes broad principles for political and governance systems, but it does not prescribe a specific system. Let me explain.
If by “political system” one means a detailed framework describing how representatives are elected to office, the responsibilities they will carry, the mechanism of power transfer, and the nature of relationships among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches, along with the powers held by the ruler, then no! None of these specifics are detailed in the Quran. In this sense, the Quran does not outline in detail a political system.
However, the Quran establishes certain principles upon which soci-eties should base their systems and conduct. These principles are broad directives, and it appears that the God of the Quran has left the specif-ics to the intellect of the people. For instance, Quran 42:38 directs that Muslims should decide their collective matters through mutual consul-tation. This implies that individuals responsible for making decisions on public affairs should be chosen through public consultation, and the transfer of power should also occur through this process. However, no specific method of public consultation is prescribed, leaving Muslims to use their intellect to choose an appropriate form. For example, they might opt for a Presidential system, a Parliamentary system, or develop any other system that meets the unique needs of each society and culture.
Other broad principles for a Muslim society to follow include uni-versal values such as ensuring justice, promoting good values, pro-hibiting evil, caring for the less fortunate, and safeguarding religious freedoms and protection from persecution. Along with specific principles on which Muslims are expected to base their political system, Islam also mandates particular punishments for certain crimes. We will discuss the details of these punishments in the next section.
Hence, Islam does not ordain any specific political system but es-tablishes certain broad principles on which Muslims must base their system, and prescribes specific punishments for certain crimes.
Question 24: Is Islam Opposed to Democracy?
No! Quran 42:38 instructs Muslims to decide their collective matters by mutual consultation. As discussed above, the Quran entrusts Muslims to use their intellect to determine the specific methods of involving peo-ple in the decision-making processes of the Muslim collective. Options may include a Presidential System, a Parliamentary System, or the development of another mechanism.
Question 25: Amar Bil Maroof Wa Nahi Anil Munkar – Can Governments Force Islam On Me?
This verse of the Quran is highly popular and often used as a justifica-tion for governments to enforce head or face coverings on women and beards on men. The phrase “Amar bil Maroof wa nahi anil Munkar” translates to “Call people to what is good and forbid them from what is evil.”
This instruction is primarily commanded to Muslims in three places in the Quran: 3:104, 3:110, and 9:71.
There are three main concepts to understand in this regard:
1. The word used for “call people to” is “Amr,” which means “to order someone to do something.” It has also been used in the Quran to mean “to invite someone to do something,” for ex- ample, in Quran 2:169. Therefore, the verse implies that if you are in a place of authority, such as the police, then you can forcefully forbid people from doing something wrong. If you are a common person, then your jurisdiction is only to advise and admonish people.
2. The words used in this verse for good and evil are “Maroof” and “Munkar”. The meanings of these words imply things that are universally recognized as good and things that are univer-sally recognized as evil, from both the perspective of Islam and universal human morality. Thus, these words do not suggest that governments have unrestricted authority to impose their interpretation of Islam on others in all matters. In fact, the verse indicates that governments can promote what is commonly known as good in society, such as honesty, cleanliness, and kindness, and can forcefully prevent actions that are universally recognized as detrimental, such as theft, dishonesty, fraud, rob-bery, unlawful violence, and injustice..
3. If a government wants to force something on others from the perspective of Islam, then it has to have a clear sanction from the Quran, meaning that the Quran has to give a clear authori-zation to a government to force that particular thing on others. For example, the Quran gives a clear sanction to Governments to enforce the collection of Zakat tax from people, to stop peo-ple from committing open adultery, and to punish them if they do so, etc.
In this context, if the Quran does not authorize the enforcement of a specific injunction of Islam by a government, then it should not be enforced. For example, decisions about women covering their heads and faces, or men being obligated to grow beards, are not granted en-forcement rights by any government according to the Quran. Therefore, everyone is free to follow the interpretation they agree with without governmental imposition. Personally speaking, in the interpretation of Islam that I agree with, currently led by Mr. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, men are not obligated to have a beard, and women are not obligated to cover their heads or faces (it is considered an optional good deed), and God has not ordained gender segregation at public events. The Quran does not sanction any government to enforce their interpretation of Islam on individuals in such matters.
Question 26: What Are Different Islamic Punishments?
The Quran prescribes worldly punishments for certain crimes for three main reasons:
1. To establish the severity of certain sins and crimes.
2. To create deterrence in society regarding these crimes and sins. 3. These punishments are embodiments of divine wrath inflicted on a person who commits such serious crimes even after accept- ing the existence of God and making a covenant of righteous- ness with God by accepting Islam.
The Quran mandates that the Muslim community enforce divinely ordained punishments for certain crimes. These severe penalties apply only to Muslims and pertain to specific offenses. However, Muslims have the discretion to assign lesser punishments if they deem the of-fender deserving of leniency.
Quran 5:32 states that the death penalty can only be imposed for two offenses: murder and crimes of “Fasaad fil Ardh.” The term Fasaad fil Ardh, meaning wreaking havoc on Earth, encompasses all crimes that harm another person’s wealth, life, and dignity, including rape, armed robbery, terrorism, and kidnapping.
The Quran specifies particular punishments for the following crimes: 1. Sexual intercourse outside marriage: Consensual sexual inter-course without marriage is termed “Zina” in Arabic and is considered an extremely serious crime and sin. The Quran strives to prohibit all sexual activity outside of marriage; thus, Quran 24:2 prescribes the punishment of 100 lashes if this crime is proven. It is important to note that a case can only be registered against someone if there are four credible witnesses who have seen the act occurring. After the case is registered, a proper investigation must be conducted to prove the crime beyond doubt before any punishment can be executed. For rape cases, which fall under the category of Fasaad fil Ardh, four witnesses are not required to register the case.
The Quran does not differentiate based on the marital status of the individual committing zina when it comes to punishment. This means that the perpetrator, whether married or unmarried, will receive lashes. This punishment is administered after a thorough investigation once the case is registered and in the presence of four credible witnesses who have directly observed the act.
Because Muhammad (PBUH) administered the death penalty to certain individuals seemingly for the crime of Zina, a misconception has developed that the death penalty is mandatory for married individuals who commit this act. However, upon closer examination of these in-stances, it becomes evident that Muhammad (PBUH) issued the death penalty not simply because the perpetrators were married, nor solely for the crime of Zina, but for crimes like rape and persistent, open, and defiant sexual misconduct, categorized as Fasaad fil Ardh.78
2. Qazaf: It refers to false testimony in general, and specifically, it pertains to falsely accusing someone of engaging in sexual intercourse outside of marriage. This act is considered a punishable crime, and the accuser is subject to lashing. 3. Theft: According to the Quran, theft is a punishable crime, and if there are no grounds for leniency, the ultimate worldly punishment prescribed is the amputation of the thief’s hand. However, if the of-fender merits consideration for leniency, a lesser punishment may be administered..
4. Murder: The ultimate earthly punishment for murder is the death penalty, granted the criminal does not deserve any leniency.
5. Hiraaba or Fasaad fil Ardh: As discussed previously, we outlined the types of crimes that fall under this category. The ultimate worldly penalty for these crimes is the death penalty unless the perpetrator is deemed deserving of leniency.
The Quran mentions no punishment for apostasy and blasphemy, so if Muslims wish to legislate on this matter, it is their prerogative. However, they must adhere to the Quranic injunction that the death penalty can only and solely be imposed for murder or Fasaad fil Ardh.
Question 27: Does Islam Mandate The Death Penalty As Punishment For Blasphemy?
For references and a detailed analysis of the content in this section, please refer to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s book “Maqamaat,” specifically the chapter titled “Punishment for Blasphemy.”
The Quran is extremely clear that the death penalty can be applied to only two crimes: murder and Fasad fil-Ardh. As discussed above, Fasad fil-Ardh encompasses all crimes that create chaos in society and cause harm to people’s lives, property, and reputation, such as rape, armed robbery, rebellion, kidnapping, and acts of terrorism.
Those who advocate for the death penalty claim that the act of blasphemy falls under the category of “Muhaarba,” meaning “Waging War on God and His Rasool,” as well as under the category of “Fasaad fil Ardh.” This is because mocking, insulting, and abusing Muhammad (PBUH) constitutes the act of fighting God’s Rasool and causing unjust damage to someone’s respect. The argument is logically true, however, the terms Muhaarba (waging war) and Fasaad fil Ardh (creating havoc on land) suggest that the criminal must be persistent and unapologetic in their insulting and abusive behavior despite all attempts by society and authorities to resolve the matter passively. Only under these circum-stances would such a crime fall under the severe categories of Muhaarba or Fasaad fil Ardh.
Proponents of the death penalty point to specific incidents in which the Prophet (PBUH) issued the death penalty to certain individuals. However, upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that these individuals were not punished exclusively for insulting Muhammad (PBUH), but also for other crimes. For example, Abu Rafay was a noto-rious enemy of Islam who incited people and led them to attack Medina during the Battle of the Trench. Kaab bin Ashraf was responsible for inciting Meccans against Muslims and Muhammad (PBUH), urging them to attack Medina after the Battle of Badr, and he initiated numer-ous slander campaigns against prominent Muslim women. According to some accounts, he even secretly plotted to assassinate Muhammad (PBUH), despite having a peace agreement with the Muslims. Abdullah bin Khattal murdered his own slave and fled Medina to avoid punish-ment. All of these individuals committed additional crimes besides insulting Muhammad (PBUH). Furthermore, according to the Quran’s law concerning the Rasool, which was discussed earlier, all these in-dividuals were also guilty of unjustly rejecting a living Rasool of God. For pagans, the divine punishment for this crime was the death penalty. Therefore, it is evident that no one was sentenced to death solely for insulting Muhammad (PBUH), but rather for multiple crimes.
Two Hadiths are presented in this regard wherein Omar (RA) be-headed a person for mocking Muhammad (PBUH), and Muhammad (PBUH) is reported to have said, “Kill those who insult the Prophets of God.” These narrations are deemed weak by most Hadith experts and cannot be presented as arguments to support the death penalty for blasphemy.
A narration from Abdullah bin Abbas (RA), a companion of Muhammad (PBUH), is presented in this context to suggest that God ordained the death penalty for blasphemy. He states:
Any Muslim who insults or mocks Muhammad (PBUH) or any other Prophet of God becomes guilty of rejecting the Messenger of God. This constitutes apostasy, and the individual will be asked to repent. If they repent, they will be spared; if they do not, they will be executed. If a non-Muslim engages in these actions, they break the peace agreement between us and will also be subject to execution.79
When we view this issue through the lens of God’s law as it relates to Prophets, which we discussed earlier in detail, it becomes clear that Ibn Abbas (RA) was specifically referring to the immediate recipi-ents of the Prophet’s messages. In the context of God’s specific laws pertaining to Prophets, those among a Prophet’s immediate recipients who reject and persecute him are subject to worldly punishment. In the case of Muhammad (PBUH), the pagans were sentenced to death, while the People of the Book were subjected to life under subjugation. Therefore, anyone among Muhammad’s (PBUH) immediate recipients who rejected him after initially accepting his message became subject to the same punishments reserved for dissenters, and those who breached the peace treaty with Muslims were also subjected to punishment in accordance with God’s laws with Rasools.
Hence, Islam ordains no punishment for the sole act of blasphemy. However, Muslims can legislate to punish this crime under Muhaarba and Fasaad fil Ardh, but these categories apply only when the perpetra-tor of abuse and insults is acting openly, publicly, and persistently, and is unwilling to cease the insults, apologize, or mend their ways despite all peaceful attempts.
Question 28: When Can Muslims Fight Others?
The Quran authorizes Muslims to engage in armed conflict for mainly three reasons. Let us briefly analyze these reasons.
1) In Quran 5:9, it is expressed that God commands Muslims to engage in combat with pagans until they embrace Islam, while Quran 9:29 states that God instructs Muslims to confront Jews and Christians until they either convert to Islam or agree to pay a tax that signifies submission and humility. We have already discussed in detail that the order to fight and inflict divine punishments on Pagans, Jews, and Christians was exclusive to the immediate addressees of a Rasool, as per the Quranic law of God, when a Rasool is present in the world. Muhammad (PBUH) is the last Rasool, which means there will be no more worldly demonstrations of God’s judgment—no more divine punishments in this world for the immediate addressees of a Rasool. Therefore, Muslims after Muhammad (PBUH) cannot fight non-Muslims solely based on their beliefs.
2) In the Quran, verses 2:190-191, warfare is permitted strictly for self-defense.
3) In Quran 4:75 and Quran 22:39-40, war is allowed against clear and open oppression and persecution. The first reason was exclusive to Muhammad (PBUH) and his immediate audi-ence. Reasons two and three relate to all Muslims; according to these reasons, Muslims can only take up arms either in self-defense or against clear and open oppression, injustice, and persecution. However, this must also occur under a lawful leader or ruler, as stated in the Quran:
Obey God, His Messenger and obey those in position of au-thority over you. (Quran 4:59) If people deem that those in authority over them are not doing their job correctly and feel the need to change them, they must resort to peaceful struggle to change the rulers under the guideline of 42:38, which states that Muslims must decide their collective matters by mu-tual consultation.
I understand that extreme exceptions might exist where it might be justified to take up arms against rulers but as far as the norm is con-cerned, the above mentioned is the will of God as per Quran.
Question 29: Is Slavery Allowed in Islam?
No! Let me explain.
Prohibition of bringing in new slaves after warfare: In Islam, a free person cannot be made a slave. The only other method to acquire slaves was through warfare. If there was a conflict for any reason, the victors would enslave the prisoners of war. Quran 47:4 directs that pris-oners of war must either be freed for ransom or out of goodwill. This verse effectively closed the door to acquiring new slaves.
Thus, Muslims cannot enslave a free person, nor can they create new slaves through warfare.
What about the existing slaves? At the time of Muhammad (PBUH), countless slaves were present in nearly every household—men, women, both young and old, along with children. The question arose: what should be done with these existing slaves? Allow me to briefly explain the Quran’s remedy for this issue.
Quran’s plan of managing existing slaves and encouragement of their freedom with economic independence: The Quran did not mandate an immediate end to all slavery because, in a less developed world, such a sweeping prohibition could have led to a humanitarian disaster, leaving hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children of all ages destitute, with their only prospects for survival being begging or prostitution. Therefore, for the existing slaves, the Quran maintains the status quo while issuing extensive directives to improve their conditions and promote their freedom through economic independence.
Quran 24:33 mandates that formal agreements be made with slaves, providing them the option of freedom if they demonstrate the ability to sustain themselves economically. God commands Muslims to share a portion of their wealth with slaves to help them attain economic independence.
The Quran deems the act of freeing slaves so great in its righ-teousness that it is prescribed as a means for Muslims to have their sins forgiven (Quran 4:92, 58:3). The Quran also states that one purpose of Zakat, or compulsory charity, is to free slaves (Quran 9:60).
Quran 4:36 instructs Muslims to treat their slaves with kindness and goodness. It was customary for men to have sexual relationships with their female slaves. The Quran acknowledges this practice and, in Quran 24:32, it encourages Muslims, both men and women, to marry their slaves if feasible.
Muhammad (PBUH) further elucidated Quranic guidelines by detailing the rights of slaves, as he relayed the following instructions to his companions: … feed them with the same food you eat and clothe them with the same clothes you wear. Do not assign them a task they cannot do; if you do so, then help them (Sahih of Bukhari, No: 30; Sahih of Muslim, No: 1661).
Although slavery was extensively practiced in the Muslim world after Muhammad (PBUH), the truth is that the God of the Quran closed the door to acquiring new slaves and mandated the management of existing slaves to gradually phase out this practice without causing a humanitarian crisis.
Question 30: Why Did Muhammad (PBUH) Not Marry Maria al-Qibtiya, and How Did He (PBUH) Treat Her According to Islamic Teachings?
Muhammad (PBUH) was gifted a slave girl named Maria al-Qibtiya by the Governor of Alexandria in 628-629 AD. Around the same time, Muhammad (PBUH) married his last wife, Maymoona (RA). This period was also marked by Muhammad’s (PBUH) wives voluntarily accepting extra restrictions upon themselves in response to slander campaigns by Muhammad’s (PBUH) enemies. Pleased with their de-votion, God commanded Muhammad in the Quran 33:52 that he could not marry any more women, nor could he divorce any of his wives. It is perhaps for this reason, Muhammad (PBUH) did not marry Mariya Qibtiya (RA) but treated her in accordance with the Quran’s command-ments regarding the management of existing slaves.
Regarding the question of why Muhammad (PBUH) did not return the gift to the Governor or grant freedom to Maria (RA) and allow her to marry someone else, we remain uncertain. It is possible that Maria (RA) herself did not desire such an arrangement, preferring the prestige associated with her relationship with the Messenger of God, one of the most powerful men in the world. What is certain is that Muhammad (PBUH) treated her well in accordance with the teach-ings of the Quran. She bore him a son, Ibrahim, who tragically died in infancy. Maria (RA) was accorded the same respect as Muhammad’s (PBUH) wives and was honored with the title “Mother of all Believers.”
Question 31: Is A Woman’s Testimony Worth Half That Of A Man’s?
There is a prevalent notion within Islam that in a court of law, a wom-an’s testimony is considered half as credible as a man’s.
The verse used to justify this is Quran 2:282. In this rather lengthy passage, God commands Muslims that when someone issues a loan to another, they should document the details in a binding contract and have two men from among them bear witness to this agreement. If two men are not available, then one man and two women should serve as witnesses. The Quran provides a rationale for the inclusion of two women, stating that if one woman hesitates or forgets, the other can support her. This precaution, ordained by God, specifically addresses loan contracts within a predominantly male-oriented culture where it was uncommon for women to travel with business caravans or partic-ipate in financial dealings. The Quran does not discuss the bearing of testimony against a crime in court. Mustafa Khattab, a renowned scholar of the Quran, explains:
Generally speaking, there is a difference between witnessing and giving testimony before a judge. Verse 2:282 talks about witnessing a debt contract, not giving testimony. To fully understand the context of this verse, we need to keep in mind that 1500 years ago women did not normally participate in business transactions or travel with trading caravans and, therefore, not every woman had the expertise to witness a debt contract. Even if two women were available at the time of signing the contract, perhaps the primary witness might not be able to recall the details of the contract or ap-pear before a judge because of compelling circumstances such as pregnancy or delivery. In any of these cases, the second woman will be a back-up. Some scholars maintain that one woman can be sufficient as a witness so long as she is reliable. As for giving testimony, a ruling can be made based on available testimony, regardless of the number or gender of the witnesses. For example, the beginning of Ramadan is usually confirmed by the sighting of the new moon, regardless of the gender of the person who sights the moon. Also, the highest form of witness in Islam is for someone to testify they heard a narration (or hadith) from the Prophet (PBUH). An authentic hadith is accepted by all Muslims regardless of the gender of the narrator. Moreover, if a husband accuses his wife of adultery and he has no witnesses, each spouse must testify five times that they are telling the truth and the other side is lying. Both testimonies are equal (see 24:6-10).80
An important note: There are some Hadiths quoted to establish that the Prophet (PBUH) said that women are deficient in their intellect and their religion.
Upon closer inspection of these Hadiths, it becomes evident that Muhammad (PBUH) is not suggesting that women have lesser intel-lect or religious value compared to men. In fact, Muhammad (PBUH) indicates that God has placed a lesser burden on women’s intellect regarding worldly matters and a lesser burden on them in terms of religious obligations. For instance, in worldly matters, God has not assigned women the financial responsibility of the family. Similarly, as far as religious matters are concerned, women generally have fewer obligations; they are not required to attend mosques for Friday prayers, they are not expected to participate in wars, and they are exempt from obligatory prayers and fasting during menstruation, yet they still receive the rewards for these deeds.
For more details and references about what I have just mentioned, you can watch my podcast titled “Conversing Islam with Hamza Ali Abbasi – Episode 11,” available on the YouTube channel “Ghamidi Center of Islamic Learning.” In this episode, I discuss in detail the above-mentioned misconceptions concerning women.
Question 32: What Were the Circumstances Surrounding the Incident of Banu Quraiza, and How Can Claims of an Unjustifiable Atrocity by Muhammad (PBUH) be Adressed?
For all the details and references related to the discussion below, please watch “Response to 23 Questions – Part 83 – Itmam e Hujjat – Javed Ahmed Ghamidi” on the YouTube channel “Ghamidi Center of Islamic Learning.”
The incident of the killing of the men of Banu Quraiza is an event heavily discussed among critics of Islam, perceived as an unjustifiable atrocity against Jews by Muhammad (PBUH). Let us briefly explore what this event was, the circumstances leading up to it, and whether Muhammad’s (PBUH) actions can be considered justified.
Medina was primarily home to three Jewish tribes: Banu Qainuqah, Banu Nadeer, and Banu Quraiza. When Muhammad (PBUH) became the ruler of Medina, he entered into a peace contract with these tribes. This agreement stipulated that they would mutually defend the city and establish a relationship based on sincerity and goodwill towards one another, and mutual trust.81
The first to violate this agreement was the Banu Qainuqah. Following the Battle of Badr, their hostility towards Muslims inten-sified. There were skirmishes, during which a Muslim woman was stripped naked in the market of Banu Qainuqah, and both a Jew and a Muslim were killed amidst the violence. Muhammad (PBUH) ap-proached the Banu Qainuqah to remind them of their treaty obligations, but the tribe responded with threats of further violence. The leader of the tribe, Kaab bin Ashraf was executed by Muslims. His crimes in-cluded traveling to Mecca to incite Meccan pagans against the Muslims in Medina and secretly plotting to assassinate Muhammad (PBUH), all while being bound by a peace treaty and mutual defense agreement with the Muslims. The rest of the Banu Qainuqah were dealt with leniently and exiled from Medina.
The second tribe, Banu Nadeer, violated their pact with the Muslims by not defending Medina during the Battle of Uhud. Additionally, they secretly attempted to assassinate Muhammad (PBUH) by planning to drop a heavy stone from above while he was seated beneath a cliff. Given these breaches, Muhammad (PBUH) issued a ten-day ultimatum for them to leave Medina. When they ignored the ultimatum, Muslims laid siege to the tribe until their surrender. Despite these actions, the Muslims showed leniency; they allowed the tribe to depart from the city but prohibited them from taking their weapons.
This repeated leniency proved disastrous because, after the exile, Banu Nadeer played a crucial role in amassing a huge army against Muslims, besieging the town of Medina with 10,000 heavily equipped soldiers and resulting in the Battle of the Trench in 627 AD. This bat-tle threatened the entire existence of Islam, as the total population of Muslims in Medina barely numbered a few thousand.
At this critical juncture, the treachery of the third Jewish tribe, Banu Quraiza, emerged. During the battle, while Medina was defended by Muslims, the tribe engaged in secret negotiations with the invading army. After the battle concluded, Banu Quraiza was not treated with the same leniency that had previously been extended to Banu Qaynuqah and Banu Nadeer. There were concerns that if the tribe of Quraiza were exiled, their men might join the ranks of the enemy and gather a larger force to attack Medina. Consequently, all the men of the fighting age were executed.
What about the women and children, though? It is understandable how tricky the question must have been regarding how to deal with hundreds of women and children who despise you for killing their adult males. What should be done with them? Quran 47:4 had earlier issued a command concerning POWs after the Battle of Badr that they must either be freed for a ransom or released out of goodwill—but who would take them? According to W. Montgomery Watt and Daniel C. Peterson, evidence suggests that members of other Jewish tribes, possibly the Banu Nadir, paid the ransom for these POWs and secured their release.82
Montgomery also acknowledges that Muhammad’s (PBUH) ac-tions with the Jews of Medina were a response to critical situations, not attempts to cleanse Medina of Jews simply because of their faith.
He writes:
The continuing presence of at least a few Jews in Medina is an argument against the view sometimes put forward by European scholars that in the second year after the Hijrah Muhammad adopted a policy of clearing all Jews out of Medina just because they are Jews, and that he carried out this policy with ever increasing severity. It was not Muhammad’s way to have policies of this kind. He has a balanced view of fundamentals of the contemporary situ-ation and of his long term aims, and in the light of this he molded his day-to-day plans in accordance with the chang-ing factors of the current events. The occasions of his attacks on the first 2 Jewish clans were no more than occasions; but there were also deep underlying reasons. The Jews in general by their verbal criticisms of the Quranic revelation were try-ing to undermine the foundation of Islamic community and they were also giving political support to Muhammad’s ene-mies and to opponents such as the Hypocrites. In so far as the Jews abandoned these forms of hostile activity Muhammad allowed them to live in Medina unmolested.83 The series of events involving Banu Quraiza has many versions with varying details. Some scholars, including Barakat Ahmed and Walid N. Arafat, even deny that a large-scale execution occurred.
History is a very tricky thing. An event in history can have multi-ple conflicting reports about why and how it happened, with no way to conclusively confirm one version over the other. Consider the tragic event of 9/11. A vast majority believe that Al Qaeda was responsible, but a significant number of people, particularly within the Muslim community, think it was orchestrated by the Jews or the CIA to create justification for attacking Muslim countries. This is why one must stick to the universally acknowledged parts of history when forming an opinion, without delving into the nitty-gritty details which can be vastly different and often conflicting.
What we know about the event involving Banu Quraiza is that a significant number of their men of fighting age were ordered to be executed. It is also somewhat certain that two Jewish tribes preceding Quraiza were exiled from Medina. If the accounts presented by Muslim historians about the prior treachery of Qaynuqa and Nadeer are accu-rate, and if it is true that they amassed an army to attack Medina after being exiled, then I believe that in the violent struggle for survival in 7th-century tribal Arabia, Muhammad’s (PBUH) actions regard-ing Quraiza were justified. The leniency previously shown to the two tribes, who were guilty of blatant treachery, resulted in disastrous con-sequences, threatening the very existence of Islam and Muslims. Had leniency been shown again and the tribe of Quraiza merely exiled, there was a very real fear that their men of fighting age would join the ranks of Banu Nadeer and the pagans of Arabia and launch an even greater attack on Medina. It appears that the leniency toward Qaynuqa and Nadeer might have encouraged treachery from Quraiza’s side, and this act of mass execution was intended to send a message of severe consequences to serve as a deterrent for anyone considering similar treacherous plans in the future.
Question 33: Do Quranic Verses Instruct Muslims to Avoid Befriending non-Muslims, and How Should These Verses Be Understood in Context?
Some verses in the Quran appear to support the notion that Muslims should not befriend non-Muslims. However, when viewed in context, these verses specifically address certain groups of non-Muslims who were contemporaries of Muhammad (PBUH) and do not dictate a perpetual stance towards all non-Muslims.
Take Quran 5:51 for example, which says:
O believers! Take neither Jews nor Christians as guardians – some of them are guardians of each other. Whoever does so will be counted as one of them. Surely Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.
When viewed in context with the subsequent verse, the Quran does not advocate a permanent policy towards all non-Muslims but specifi-cally addresses a select group of non-Muslims who were in direct con-flict with the followers of Muhammad (PBUH) at the time. It cautions Muslims that within their ranks, there are hypocrites who fear defeat and desire alliances with these hostile non-Muslims. The Quran further states that these hypocrites will regret their actions when God grants victory to the Muslims. This context is explained in Quran 5:51-52.
O believers! Take neither Jews nor Christians as guard-ians – some of them are guardians of each other. Whoever does so will be counted as one of them. Surely Allah does not guide the wrong doing people. You see those with sickness in their hearts racing for their friendship with them, saying ࡈin justificationࡉ, “We fear a turn of fortune will strike us.” But perhaps Allah will bring about ࡈyourࡉ victory or another favor by His command, and they will regret what they have hidden in their hearts.
This matter is further clarified in 60:8-9:
God does not forbid you from dealing kindly and justly with those ‘non-Muslims’ who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely God loves those who are just. God only forbids you from befriending those who have fought you for ࡈyourࡉ faith, driven you out of your homes, or supported ࡈothersࡉ in doing so. And whoever takes them as friends, then it is they who are the ࡈtrueࡉ wrongdoers.
We have already discussed in detail Quran verses 9:5 and 9:29. These verses instruct Muslims to fight, kill, and subjugate non-Muslims unless they convert to Islam. According to God’s law, when a Rasool was present in the world, this was a divine punishment ordained for those who rejected him for unjustified reasons, fought against him, and persecuted him. These verses specifically address Muhammad’s (PBUH) contemporaries and do not dictate a permanent policy for Muslims towards non-Muslims.
According to the Quran, all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve (PBUT), and in this way, all are family. Non-Muslims are not tar-gets to conquer and rule but fellow humans to love, co-exist with, and deliver God’s message to with utmost respect and goodwill..
Question 34: Was the Miraaj a Physical Journey?
If there really is an all-powerful God, can this deity enable a man to ride a winged horse and journey into higher dimensions? Absolutely, God can do that. It is commonly believed that Muhammad (PBUH) physi-cally ascended to the heavens on a winged horse during the journey of Miraaj. However, a closer examination of the Quran and Hadith reveals that the experiences attributed to Muhammad (PBUH) in the context of Miraaj were not physical. They were, in fact, four distinct instances of true prophetic dreams and visions of literal events, which later Hadith transmitters conflated into a single instance of Miraaj and described as a physical, literal event. Let me briefly discuss these four instances.
The first instance is mentioned in Surah Isra, verse 1, which states: “Blessed is your Lord who took His servant (Muhammad) by night from the sacred mosque to the farthest mosque whose surroundings I have blessed, so that I may show him some of my signs. Indeed, I am all-hearing and all-seeing.” Verse 60 of the same Surah confirms that this was a ‘Roya,’ which in Arabic means a dream. A prophet’s dream is not like an ordinary person’s dream—it contains truth, sometimes shown literally and sometimes depicted through analogy or symbolism.
In my opinion, the most apt interpretation of this dream, pro-vided by Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, suggests that by showing Muhammad (PBUH) the mosque in Mecca and the mosque in Jerusalem, he was metaphorically shown that Muhammad (PBUH) and his immediate followers would take possession of both of these landmarks of divine importance.
Many argue that the Arabic word ‘Roya’ in this verse does not refer to a dream or a vision but to physically seeing something in person. This argument is flawed because the word ‘Roya’ has been used many times in the Quran to mean a dream or a vision—for example, in Surah As Saffat verse 105, Surah Yusuf verses 43, 5, and 100, and Surah Fatah verse 27. In Hadith literature, the word ‘Roya’ has been mentioned numerous times, and each time it has been used to signify a dream or vision.
The second instance involves Muhammad (PBUH) ascending to heaven and meeting various prophets. From Bukhari 7517, it is evi-dent that this was a prophetic dream of Muhammad (PBUH) while he was asleep in the mosque in Mecca. This narration, attributed to Muhammad’s companion Anas bin Malik (RA), describes how Gabriel, along with two other angels, came to Muhammad (PBUH), washed his heart and body parts, and then escorted him to heaven. There, Muhammad (PBUH) met all the prophets and God Himself. During this visitation, Muhammad (PBUH) saw many things in heaven and received the instructions for the five daily prayers. The narration ex-plicitly mentions that Muhammad (PBUH) was asleep in the mosque, indicating that this instance was a dream and not a physical journey.
The third and fourth instances are from Surah Najm 53:1-18, where God assures Muhammad’s (PBUH) opponents that he is not delusional. Indeed, Muhammad (PBUH) did see Angel Gabriel twice in his real form, literally with his own eyes. These instances from Surah Najm represent real visions seen through the eyes, unlike the prophetic dreams described in the first and second instances.
All these are four distinct instances, which some historians and hadith transmitters later merged into one narrative of the popular event known as Miraaj.
Question 35: Does The Quran Refer To Muslims As A Nation?
No, the Quran does not define Muslims as a nation. Although many Muslims might wish to live under a single united country—and rightly so, as I too desire for Muslims to unite and form a single powerful nation—God in the Quran does not impose a religious obligation on Muslims to strive to live under a single ruler or state. Instead, the Quran describes Muslims as a ‘Fraternity’ or ‘Brotherhood’ in Quran 49:10. Islam is not a national ideology but a universal message for all humanity; anyone can embrace Islam and become part of the Muslim fraternity.
Question 36: Can Someone Who Identifies As A Muslim Be Declared A Non-Muslim Or A Kafir?
For a detailed response, please refer to the playlist titled “Response to 23 Questions – Excommunication From Islam (Takfeer) – Javed Ahmed Ghamidi,” available on the YouTube channel Ghamidi Center of Islamic Learning.
The Quran uses the term ‘Kafir,’ which simply means “Rejector,” for those who have rejected Islam. It also applies to those who, knowing the truth in their hearts, reject it for wrongful reasons. We have explored this concept in detail in Chapter 5.
However, what about individuals who claim they do not reject Islam and identify themselves as Muslims, yet hold beliefs that clearly violate Islamic teachings? What if they justify their erroneous beliefs using the Quran, Sunnah, and Hadith, and insist they are Muslims? Is there an official mechanism in the Quran that authorizes Muslim scholars to excommunicate such individuals from Islam and label them as Kafirs or Rejectors? The answer is no. Let me explain.
There are various groups and sects within Islam that identify them-selves as Muslims but hold views vastly different from each other—views that opposing sects consider completely against the basic teachings of Islam. For example:
One group believes that the leader of the Muslims is appointed directly by God. Another group contends that Muslims are directed by God to choose their leader through mutual consultation. A third group holds that God has appointed the souls of Prophets and Saints to manage the affairs of existence and make decisions on God’s behalf. Conversely, other groups passionately reject these beliefs, stating that God has made no such hierarchy and has explicitly stated in various Quranic verses that no one shares in His authority. Additionally, one group claims that Prophethood ended with Muhammad (PBUH) in such a way that future prophets will not bring any new divine law and will be subservient to the law given through Muhammad (PBUH), while other groups assert that all forms of Prophethood ended with Muhammad (PBUH). Frequently, members within each group label others as Kafir, thereby attempting to excommunicate them from Islam. The question arises: has God ordained a mechanism through which someone can be excommunicated from Islam? The answer is No.
Only God and His last Prophet and Messenger, Muhammad (PBUH), had the authority to declare who is or isn’t a true Muslim. God possesses this authority because only He knows what is in a per-son’s heart, and Muhammad (PBUH) had this authority because he was in direct communication with God.
After Muhammad (PBUH), if someone who identifies as a Muslim believes in something clearly against basic Islamic teachings, it is im-possible to determine whether this person is genuinely mistaken or deliberately embracing a falsehood for wrongful reasons. Therefore, others only have the jurisdiction to point out the flaw in such a person’s belief but have no authority to expel this person from Islam.
Let me elaborate on what I am discussing through personal examples:
There are groups of Muslims who believe that saints and prophets have a share in God’s authority and manage the affairs of creation on His behalf. They pray to these saints and venerate them as they should venerate God alone. In my view, their belief directly contradicts the Quranic idea that God does not share His authority with anyone. Can I brand Muslims who hold this belief as Kafir? No!
There are groups of Muslims who embrace the concept of “Haqeeqat-e-Muhammadi,” which suggests that Muhammad (PBUH) was essen-tially the essence of God manifested in human form. Others subscribe to the idea of “Wahdat-ul-Wajood,” which posits that the entire universe and everything within it are parts of God manifested materially. For me, such beliefs completely contradict the Quran’s teachings on the oneness and uniqueness of God, but can I brand such Muslims as Kafir? No!
Some Muslims believe that various saints and holy personalities are directly designated by God to guide people and that God communicates with them for this purpose. This notion is in complete contradiction to the Quran’s concept that God only guides people through direct contact with Prophets and Messengers. But has God given me the authority to brand Muslims with such beliefs as Kafir? No!
There are groups of Muslims who believe that the cessation of Prophethood with Muhammad (PBUH) means there will be no more law-bearing Prophets, though non-law-bearing Prophets who are bound to follow the law and religion brought by Muhammad (PBUH) can still appear. This belief directly opposes the Quran’s explicit teaching, sup-ported by numerous Hadiths, that all forms of Prophethood have ended with Muhammad (PBUH). Do I have the right to brand followers of this concept as Kafir? No!
The Quran and Hadith strictly warns against the idea of excom-municating people from the fold of Islam and branding them as Kafir. Quran states in various places that only God knows who is truly guided and who is misguided, such as in Quran 16:125: “Only God alone knows who has strayed from the right path and who is truly guided.”
Hence the Quran insists that humans should restrict themselves to only educating each other on Islam and should not become judges on matters of faith to proclaim who is truly a Muslim and who isn’t.
Quran 49:11 commands Muslims not to call others by offensive nicknames, which prominent commentators like Tabari, Ikrima, and Mujahid interpret as including calling someone a Kafir who identifies as a Muslim. Numerous Hadiths prohibit the practice of declaring fellow Muslims as non-believers. For example:
1) The Prophet (PBUH) is reported to have said that “Whoever calls a Muslim a Kafir – it is like he has killed him and whoever declares someone as cursed (destined for hellfire) has also killed him” (Jami Maa’mar bin Rashid, No: 19710).
2) Muhammad (PBUH) is reported to have said that, “Whoever calls a Muslim a kafir then one of them definitely becomes a kafir. If the one who is accused of being a kafir turns out to be kafir on judgment day, then the one who branded him shall be spared and if the one who is accused of being a kafir does not turn out to be a kafir, then the one who branded him shall become kafir” (Sahih of Muslim, No: 60).
As per the Quran and Hadith, it is clear that judgment on matters of belief will be handed down by God on the Day of Judgment. As far as this world is concerned, people have to be labeled according to how they label themselves. Only those people can be called non-Muslims or disbelievers who call themselves disbelievers. Those who call themselves Muslims cannot be branded as non-Muslims, even if some of their be-liefs seem flawed. If a group of Muslims has flawed beliefs, then other Muslims can only try to educate them on their flawed belief but cannot become judges in matters of belief and declare them Non-Muslims or Kafirs.
Question 37: Was Noah’s (PBUH) Flood A Global Event And Was He Instructed To Get A Pair Of All Animal Species On Board?
While there is compelling evidence suggesting there might have been a global flood in the past, the Quran clearly indicates that the flood during Noah’s (PBUH) time was not a global event. Noah (PBUH) was a Rasool of God, and as discussed earlier, God’s worldly punishment typically targets those who directly reject the message of a Rasool. Therefore, Noah’s (PBUH) flood was a punishment specifically for the rejectors among his immediate addressees, indicating that it was a regional, not global, flood.
Accordingly, the directive given to Noah (PBUH) to bring animals on board the ark should not be interpreted literally as encompassing all animal species worldwide. Rather, it was an instruction to gather all animals necessary to sustain Noah (PBUH) and his fellow passengers. To illustrate, consider a scenario where you are preparing to leave for the airport for a vacation; when you tell a friend to ensure all necessary clothes are packed, you mean all the clothes needed for the trip, not every article of clothing in the world.
Question 38: Were We Asked Before Being Thrown Into This Test Of Life? If Yes, Then Why Do We Not Remember Making This Choice?
There are two verses from the Quran to consider in this matter.
1) Quran 7:172: This verse says that the souls of all human beings were created at once before coming into this world and they were made to testify that God is their creator.
2) Quran 33:72: This verse affirms that humankind made a choice to go through this test.
These verses imply that our presence in this life was a choice we made to be in this test. This raises questions, such as why we don’t re-member these pre-worldly events and the exact nature of our existence before entering this world.
Scholars like Mr. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi state that the memories of these events have been omitted from our conscious minds for the purpose of this test. This makes sense because if we clearly remembered what God is and our decision to come here to be tested, then a crucial element of the worldly test would be compromised. This element is the freedom of choice—to accept and be mindful of God or to reject Him and be negligent. How can anyone reject something they have clearly seen themselves? Therefore, in this existence, while there are signs of God within us and all around us, the literal memories of these events have been erased for the purpose of the test.
God or reject God and be negligent toward Him. How can anyone reject something they remember clearly and literally seeing themselves?
Hence, in this existence, there are signs of God within us and all around us, but the literal memories of these events have been wiped out for the purpose of the test.
My personal belief on this matter: I would like to offer a personal inference on this matter, which is a belief shared by Dr. Rehan Ahmed Yusufi, who is a friend of mine and also an Islamic scholar. He is also known by his popular pen name, Abu Yahya. Since the Quran states that all human souls were created simultaneously before entering this world, and it also states that we chose to undergo the test of this world, it can be rightly inferred that we also chose the specifics of the test we wish to face. This suggests that before entering this world, we decided on the exact nature of all the good and bad circumstances we would encounter.
My personal observation on this matter which explains the existence of mentally disabled people and death of children: If we ourselves chose to be tested and face divine accountability, it can be reasonably inferred that some souls opted for a safer path. They wished to enter paradise but avoided the risk of facing divine accountability on Judgment Day. These souls may enter the world either as mentally disabled individuals or as children who die before reaching adulthood. Because they are not fully capable of being accountable for their moral decisions, they will not face divine accountability on Judgment Day. Nevertheless, they will still attain the status of basic citizens of Paradise. In this divine scheme, they serve as a test for the people around them, and some may endure worldly suffering in this role.
Question 39: Why Is It Crucial For A Person To Act Upon What They Sincerely Believe To Be The Truth, Even If That Belief Is Mistaken?
We have already discussed this point, but due to its crucial importance, I feel it needs to be briefly mentioned again in this section.
The God of the Quran wants people to sincerely act upon what they genuinely believe is the truth, even if they are mistaken in their belief.
The sincerity of belief and action is of utmost importance to God.
This principle is made clear in Quran 2:187. Let me explain briefly.
In this verse, while commenting on a few companions of the Prophet (PBUH), the Quran says that they mistakenly believed that God had prohibited intercourse between spouses for the entire month of Ramadan, even during the night after breaking the fast. Despite this belief, these companions had intercourse with their spouses at night after breaking their fasts. The Quran clarifies that those companions were mistaken in believing that a husband and wife are not allowed to have intercourse during the nights of Ramadan after breaking their fasts. However, God also addresses those companions who, despite their flawed belief, sincerely thought they were committing a wrongful deed by having intercourse with their wives under the mistaken belief that it was prohibited. The principle is that if you genuinely believe God has prohibited something, then you shouldn’t do it, even if you are mistaken in believing so. Here is the literal translation of the verse:
It is lawful for you to have sexual relations with your wives during the night of the fast. They are your garment, and you are theirs. God knows that you used to betray yourselves and He mercifully relented and pardoned you. You can intimately associate with your wives and benefit from the enjoyment God had made lawful for you and eat and drink at night until you can distinguish the white streak of dawn against the blackness of the night; then (give up all that and) com-plete your fasting until night sets in. But do not associate intimately with your wives during the period when you are on retreat in the mosques (I’tikaf). These are the bounds set by God; do not, then, even draw near them. This is how God makes His signs clear to humankind so that they may stay away from sin (Quran 2:187).
Maulana Maududi writes while commenting on this verse in his Tafseer Tafheem-ul-Quran:
Although there was no categorical ordinance in the early days prohibiting sexual intercourse between husband and wife during the nights of Ramadan, people generally assumed that this was not permissible. Despite the feeling that their action was either not permitted or was at least disapproved of, they did at times approach their wives. Such a betrayal of conscience can encourage a sinful disposition. God, there-fore, first reproaches them for their lack of integrity, for this is what was objectionable. As for the act itself, God makes it clear that it is quite permissible. Henceforth they might engage in sexual intercourse as a perfectly lawful act unen-cumbered by feelings of guilt.
The above-mentioned instance makes it clear that the Quran wants people to act upon what they sincerely believe to be divine truth, even if they are mistaken in their belief. However, we must remind ourselves here that the Quran also expects people to always be ready to lend a sincere and serious ear to anything about God and religion that seems to make sufficient sense and judge matters on merit by rising above all biases when analyzing any information about God and religion. We must also remind ourselves that on the Day of Judgment, genuine and sincere mistakes will be forgiven, but deliberate negligence and failure to accept the truth for wrongful reasons will not be tolerated.
Conclusion
The nature of my own self and the reality around me often compelled me to question: Where did everything come from, and what is every-thing all about? Many questions persistently plagued my mind—such as whether there is an objective purpose behind existence or none at all. I kept brushing aside these questions to focus on more immediate concerns and pursuits in life. Things were going great! However, the idea of divine accountability increasingly troubled me.
I kept hearing about post-mortem divine accountability, divine rewards, and punishments—every single day. Whether on TV, social media, in newspapers, or from friends and family, these ideas confronted me in one way or another, and they increasingly worried me. What if there is some truth to these ideas? What if God does exist? More impor-tantly, what if there truly is divine accountability, where I will be judged based on my conduct in this life, and that judgment will determine a permanent outcome for me, good or bad?
These are serious prospects. The more I heard, the more I felt the need to investigate these ideas seriously, to come to a reasonable con-clusion and lead my life accordingly. If there is no God and no divine accountability, then I have nothing to worry about and should make immediate worldly benefits and pleasures my only pursuit. However, if the other possibility—that there is, in fact, a God and divine account-ability—seems more plausible, then success in that divine accountability should be my primary concern. Again, I knew that in this domain, obtaining conclusive answers is difficult, but I needed to come to a reasonable conclusion because, considering how serious the matter is, leading a life without addressing this issue felt like criminal negligence.
Initially, swayed by the passionate speeches of proponents of new atheism, I concluded that there is no God, and no God means no divine accountability. Gradually, however, rational considerations began to trouble me from a rational perspective. In a reality devoid of God, I am still compelled to believe in some kind of primordial substance as the first cause of everything. It is thought-provoking that this primordial substance somehow contains all the necessary ingredients to unfold over time as self-aware consciousnesses like you and me. We possess intellect, a sense of morality, and an appreciation for aesthetics. We can comprehend both beauty and grotesqueness. Moreover, this fundamen-tal reality unfolds into the world we live in, a world rich and diverse enough to cater to all aspects of our consciousness and senses, providing beauty, music, and a rich variety of tastes, colors, and everything else we need and desire.
Furthermore, the most remarkable aspect of the reality around us is that it is so magnificently intelligible and useful to us. It provides us with all kinds of materials and tools to accomplish whatever we choose to pursue—from the Stone Age to the Industrial Age, from our dreams of flight, to the Information and Space Ages. We have been able to understand reality so brilliantly and fulfill whatever we plan from the resources that the reality around us provides.
How can inanimate matter give rise to all of this purely through mind-less processes and coincidence? One significant reason for my initial lean toward atheism was my belief that concepts like God, the soul, and the afterlife were purely religious ideas, conclusively disproven by non-religious minds in sci-ence, medicine, and other disciplines. I thought that believing in such ideas meant going against science and the established truths of the “real world.” But I was proven wrong when I stumbled upon research, theo-ries, and findings by non-religious individuals advocating for the possi-bility of a mind behind the creation of everything—what sounded like “God” to me—and the notion that I could have an existence separate from my material brain—akin to a “soul”—and that I might continue to exist post-bodily death, resembling an “afterlife.” While I acknowledge that such theories are not proven facts, I was intrigued by the fact that non-religious individuals, including some who identify as agnostics or atheists, advocate for the plausibility of such ideas. This shattered my belief that concepts like God, the soul, and the afterlife were merely re-ligious fables which have been unanimously and conclusively discredited by the non-religious world.
Furthermore, discoveries like DNA, which contains coded instruc-tions for producing life and organisms, suggest the possibility of intelli-gence behind everything. Additionally, esteemed scientific voices claim to have made theoretical discoveries indicating that coded information might be embedded in the very fabric of reality. The only known source of instructions in code format today is the human mind. Thus, the most rational inference is that if instructions in code format exist that enable the most basic processes of nature, then they likely originated from a mind as well. Just because we do not know where that mind came from or what it truly is should not lead us to negate the most apparent explanation.
It became increasingly difficult for me to maintain the belief that everything is the result of undirected, mindless processes. The idea that some intelligence might be behind everything seemed more fitting as an explanation. Yet, despite all signs pointing to an intelligent creator, could it still be possible that everything is a result of a fantastic, mind-less process beyond our comprehension? Yes, in the realm of inferences, anything is possible! I emphasize the word “inference” because both atheists and theists make inferences. An atheist cannot claim to have objectively negated all possibilities of God, and a theist cannot present a tangible being like God that we can see and converse with directly. Both present a set of facts and arguments and try to prove their points through inference. Yet, my increasing inclination toward theism grew even stronger, as human history is filled with claims that this intelli-gence has made contact with us countless times to guide us.
With my previous belief shattered—that the non-religious intel-ligentsia had conclusively negated religious ideas like God, the soul, and the afterlife—I became open to exploring religions. My aim was to investigate their arguments regarding the existence and identity of the creator intelligence and, more importantly, to assess the truth behind the possibility of divine accountability after death.
I discovered that religions can be broadly categorized into two types. First, there are mystic religions, where individuals claim to attain enlightenment and discover ultimate truths about reality through ratio-nal thinking, meditation, and acquiring knowledge and wisdom. I also include philosophy in this category. Second, there are revealed religions, where individuals claim to have been directly contacted by a higher intelligence who revealed information about us and our reality. I found revealed religions to be my primary focus of investigation because their fundamental premise is that the intelligence that created everything has revealed truths about our purpose and the afterlife.
I allowed common sense to guide me, believing that if there is di-vine truth in the world, it should be easily accessible to a layperson like me who is not a scholar or aspiring to be one. Hence, I decided to focus on the most popular tradition of revealed religions—the Abrahamic tradition, which has more than 4 billion followers worldwide, account-ing for over half of the global population.
Within the spectrum of Abrahamic faiths, I chose to explore the Quran for several reasons:
1) Unlike scriptures like the Vedas and the Old and New Testaments, whose origins cannot be definitively established, it is reasonable to conclude that the Quran is indeed the same document handed down by Muhammad (PBUH) to his follow-ers as the word of God.
2) The Quran is preserved in its original language.
3) The events surrounding the revelation of the Quran are well-documented in history. Even if one does not believe that Muhammad (PBUH) was a Messenger of God, it is difficult to deny—unless one is an extreme conspiracy theorist—that there was indeed a person in Arabia with the claims made in the Quran, who conquered the Arabian peninsula and whose immediate followers ended up conquering almost half of the civilized world.
The claim that the Quran is the direct word of God, its availability in its original language, and the historical verifiability of both the doc-ument and the events surrounding its origins made it the most suitable starting point for my inquiry into revealed religions.
The basic teachings of the Quran resonated with me, thanks to the brilliant work of mainstream scholars who have made Islam un-derstandable for laypersons like me. However, I encountered many logical and moral issues within Islam that remained unresolved for a long time. It was then that I came across Mr. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, whose insights not only resolved these issues but also introduced me to the Quranic concept of what a Rasool (Messenger) of God truly is. This became the single most powerful proof of divine accountability and the most convincing reason for me to take the Quran very seriously.
Understanding the concept of Rasool is essential for grasping the true and factual introduction of the Quran. Once I analyzed the Quran with this accurate context in mind, it unveiled a treasure trove of in-sights that addressed all of my existential questions. Allow me to share that introduction with you.
According to the Quran, human beings have basic guidance em-bedded within them, details of which are supplemented by direct di-vine contact. We are undergoing a test in this world to demonstrate how we exercise our free will, meaning we have complete freedom of choice regarding moral decisions. When people forgot or distorted this guidance, God sent His Prophets (Nabis) to all nations to guide them back to the truth. Rejecting or accepting a Prophet’s message carried no worldly consequences.
However, when people persisted in denying divine guidance and accountability after death, God demonstrated His divine ac- count-ability here on earth multiple times throughout human history as the ultimate proof of post-mortem divine accountability. This divine court of law is established on earth through a Rasool. A Rasool is a Prophet who is directly contacted by God, but what elevates the Prophet (Nabi) to the rank of Rasool is the additional responsibility of executing God’s judgment here on Earth.
In this life, while those who embrace His message are rewarded in the here and now. Through the Rasool, God makes the truth clear to his immediate audience: those who reject the Rasool are punished in this life, while those who embrace His message are rewarded in the here and now.
In essence, a Rasool serves as the divine court of judgment for his immediate audience. The Quran is the preserved communication of God—the record of how God unleashed divine accountability on earth through His last Rasool, Muhammad (PBUH). It provides detailed accounts of how earlier nations were judged through their Rasools and outlines the exact step-by-step plan for divine judgment to unfold for the immediate audience of Muhammad (PBUH). History has witnessed events unfolding precisely as laid out by the Quran, occurring on a global scale for all humanity to witness.
Several factors further enhance the credibility of the Quran and Islam:
1) The Quran coherently aligns with earlier scriptures. The nar-ratives of the Old and New Testaments correspond with the Quran’s depiction of Rasools of God, such as Noah, Abraham, Lot, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad (Peace be upon them all). The events related to these personalities were not random acts of divine wrath but, as per the Quran, were highly coordinated instances of God unleashing earthly demonstrations of His divine judgment for two purposes: First, to provide the most compelling proof of Judgment Day and second, to raise nations to practice and preach God’s message to the world.
2) Muhammad (PBUH) had no military or political background, yet the Quran issues flawless military and political strategies that led to complete victories—Muhammad (PBUH) took no credit for these, insisting he was merely following God’s orders. 3) Despite lacking formal education in religious studies or preach- ing, yet the Quran engages in profound inter-religious debates that are intellectually sound and factually grounded.
4) Although illiterate and with no background in poetry, Muhammad (PBUH) produced a linguistic and poetic mas-terpiece in the Quran over 23 years. It is astounding that many verses were revealed and recited in response to immediate events. 5) Shakespeare and Allama Iqbal didn’t become brilliant po-ets overnight. Leaders like George Washington, Jinnah, and Gandhi didn’t emerge as great figures in an instant, nor did military geniuses like Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan suddenly appear as paragons of strategy. Each of these individ-uals underwent a gradual evolution in their respective fields of brilliance. In contrast, Muhammad (PBUH) appears to have had no such evolution. Before the age of 40, he showed no interest in seeking knowledge or engaging in discussions about politics, philosophy, military affairs, religion, or poetry. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, he began producing the Quran—a masterpiece that encompasses all these subjects. This raises significant questions about the origins of the Quran, suggesting it could not have been a product of Muhammad’s (PBUH) own intellect. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that he had a team of experts in these diverse fields crafting the Quran for him, often in response to specific circumstances. Together, these points present a compelling case that Muhammad (PBUH) may indeed be speaking the truth about having been contacted by a higher intelligence.
6) The Quran contains accurate predictions about future events, from the Muslim takeover of Mecca, prophecy about the imme-diate companions of Muhammad (PBUH) ruling over a great empire, to the miraculous prophecy of Byzantine victory over Persia, all of which were fulfilled as predicted.
7) There are predictions in other scriptures that seem to align perfectly with the personality and life of Muhammad (PBUH).
I find it truly miraculous that a book given 1,500 years ago by an illiterate desert dweller can address the existential inquiries of a 21st-century person like me in such a compelling manner. These combined factors led me to conclude that Islam is the divine truth, and I surrendered to it. The name “Islam” itself signifies surren-der to truth and to God. However, I remain open to being corrected, and I will maintain this openness for as long as I live.
Regarding the existence of God, personal experience is also a potent reason for many to believe in God. Billions of people across various religions and ideologies report instances of feeling the Divine presence in their lives. While I do not present personal experience as evidence of God due to its subjectivity, I affirm that I have felt the presence of God in my life. I find that the more conscious and mindful one is of God’s guidelines and the more one engages in voluntary acts of worship, the more one feels God’s presence.
At the beginning of this chapter, I shared my reasons for writing this book. I will conclude with one last reason: discovering the God of the Quran means discovering my Creator. I found that my only true relationship I will ever have is with my Creator; all others are secondary. My family, friends, and even my self-identity would be different if I had been born elsewhere. My only true relationship is with the One who created me out of nothing before my conception in my mother’s womb. I wish to make my Creator happy and proud of me. Along with other good deeds, sharing His message with others is something that truly earns merit with Him, which is why I strive to share what I believe is God’s message. Whether I reach many or just a few doesn’t matter; God appreciates the simple act of sharing His message, and I hope and pray to keep my intentions sincere.
I want to emphasize that I am not a scholar or an academic; I am just a layperson who persistently asked existential questions and even-tually found satisfying answers. Whether you agree or disagree with me, I am grateful for your time and attention. However, I urge you to explore the Quran with its proper introduction, as I have mentioned throughout this book. The Quran claims to be the easiest book to attain guidance, with a simple message: There is a God who will hold every-one accountable after worldly death. Everyone will be questioned about their actions in this world. Success in that accountability depends on the purity and goodness of your character, how seriously you approached matters concerning God, and how sincere your quest for answers was. It also depends on how many of your beliefs were based on merit rather than bias, the good deeds you performed, and the righteousness of your intentions behind those deeds. Sincere mistakes will be forgiven, but deliberate and persistent wrongdoing will be severely punished.
Be mindful of the day when you shall all return to your Creator – then all human beings shall be fully held account-able for whatever good or bad they have done, and no one shall be treated unjustly – (Quran 2:281).
Thank You!
The book emphasizes the Quran’ s role as a preserved record of divine accountability on earth through the last Rasool, Muhammad (PBUH). The author hopes for divine accountability and a good outcome in the afterlife for themselves and the readers. This book aims to provide rationally and morally satisfactory answers to existential questions for laypersons. It encourages readers to approach the Quran with an open mind and consider its message of accountability, purity, and sincerity.
The main themes of the book revolve around the nature of biases and their impact on the pursuit of truth, the human tendency towards bias in matters of God and religion, the importance of simplicity in understanding divine accountability, the necessity of humility in existential matters, the role of inference in drawing conclusions, the relationship between science and the existence of a divine being, the use of multiple tools in existential inquiries, the significance of consciousness and intelligence in the universe, the simplicity of the uncaused cause, the relevance of our comprehension of what is “simple” and “complex,” the justification for believing in a creator with similarities to us, and the realistic possibility of an intelligent consciousness as the first cause of everything.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Hamza Ali Abbasi is a prominent Pakistani film/television actor & director who has won several national and inter-national awards for his work. Born on June 23, 1986, in Multan, Pakistan, Hamza’ s journey from qualifying for Pa-kistan’s civil service to becoming a celebrated figure in the entertainment industry is both inspiring and uncon-ventional.
After completing his Masters in International Relations from Quaid-i-Azam Uni-versity Islamabad, Hamza initially pursued a career in civil service and passed the coveted CSS
- “The Penal Code – Chapter 17. Protection of Norway’s Auton-omy and Other Fundamental National Interests – Lovdata,” accessed May 27, 2024, https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/2005-05-20-28/KAPITTEL2-2#%C2%A7116.
- For a detailed discussion on the meaning of the term please see: “Khimar,” accessed May 27, 2024, https://quransmessage.com/articles/a%20deeper%20look%20at%20the%20word%20 khimar%20FM3.htm.
- See for detail: Muhammad b. Saad, Al-Tabaqaat al-Kubra, vol. 10 (Cairo: Maktaba al-Khaanji, 2001), 57; Musnad of Ahmed, No: 25241.
- See: Ibn-e-Ishāq; Yahya b. Sharf Nawawi, Kitab Tahdhib al-asmaa wallughaat, vol. 2, (Lebanon: Dar al-kutub al-`ilm-iyya, n.d), 351; Ibn-e-Hisham, Al-seerah al-nabawiyya, vol. 1, (Damascus: Dār al-Khayr, 1999), 604.
- See: Ibn Hisham, Al-seerah al-nabawiyya, [Chap. ‘Mention of those of the Companions who became Muslim by the invita-tion of Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him]’, Publ. Dar al-Khayr, Damascus (1999), vol. 1, pg. 604.
- See entries on Jaariya in Lisan al-Arab of Ibn Manzoor and al-Qamus al-Muhit of al-Fayruzabadi.
- That Aisha was 10 years younger than Asma and Asma was born 27 years before Hijra is testified by: Yahya b. Sharf Nawawi, Kitab Tahdhib al-asmaawal-lughaat, vol. 2, (Lebanon: Dar al-kutub al-`ilmiyya, n.d), 328-9.
- Abu al-Fidaa, Ibn e Kathīr, al-Bidaaya wa al-Nihaayah, vol. 8, (Cario: Isaal-Baabi al-Halbi, 1986), 91, 131.
- Kate Wong, “The Face of the Earliest Human Ancestor, Revealed,” Scientific American, November 26, 2019, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-face-of-the-earliest-human-ancestor-revealed/
- For a detailed analysis of the theory that behavioral modernity arose suddenly in humans around 50,000 years ago see Klein, Richard G.. “Anatomy, behavior, and modern human origins.” Journal of World Prehistory 9 (1995): 167-198; Also see: “The Transition to Modern Behavior | Learn Science at Scitable,” accessed May 27, 2024, https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/the-transition-to-modern-behavior-86614339/.
- “If She Stipulated That He Should Not Take Another Wife, Does He Have to Adhere to That? – Islam Question & Answer,” accessed May 27, 2024, https://islamqa.info/en/answers/143120/if-she-stipulated-that-he-shouldnot-take-an-other-wife-does-he-have-to-adhere-to-that.
- Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, “Rajam Ki Saza,” in Burhan, (Lahore: Al-Mawrid, 2010), pp.
- Ibn Qayyim, Zaad al Ma‘aad, vol. 5 (Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazam, 2019), 379.
- Mustafa Khattab’s Commentary on 2:282 in his translation of Quran entitled “The Clear Quran”.
- Biography of Ibn e Hisham & also see Abu al-A’laa Maududi commentaryon Surah Ahzab (Q 33) in Tafheem ul-Quran.
- See for details: Watt, W. Montgomery, Prophet and States-man, (Calcutta:1961), 170-176; Daniel C. Peterson, Muham-mad, prophet of God, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007), 125-127.
- Watt, Prophet and Statesman, 175.