How Much of Islam Should You Follow?

This is often the question that lingers in the minds of many. Islam is not like any other religion, it is unique in many aspects and that’s one of the reasons why people find it difficult to relate to it. One wouldn’t be able to distinguish a “practicing” Christian from a non-practicing one because basically both go to the same church; hold the same beliefs and Christianity being the lenient religion it is-as a result of alterations by different people at different points in history-every “believer” has the freedom to do anything they want to. So there really isn’t any distinguishing factor in Christianity. A believer is a believer; whether he’s a rapist or a priest; both are equal in terms of their status in the Christian faith because the actions of a person don’t matter once the person believes in a savior. Cool much? I think not, it’s far from that.

Now let’s get to the crux of the matter. Islam is completely opposed to this idea. Obviously even in Islam, a believer is better in status than a disbeliever how much ever “pious” then the latter may be. But Islam is not unreasonable like Christianity; there is justice in all its principles. Allah decreed certain guidelines and rules that every Muslim must comply with. In order to maintain peace and justice in the society we have set rules which are to be followed by everybody, there are no exceptions to it. It is not just the muftis or scholars who have to follow the religion. A person who claims to be a Muslim is expected to comply with its obligations. Harsh much? Not really, in fact not even close. These principles/rules are for the benefit of the community.

Like every other religion, in Islam too, there is the concept of an Afterlife. This belief in an afterlife is not alien; in fact it is the basis of any other religion–most of them for that matter. To give you a brief idea of how a Christian will be “saved” or rewarded, it is by their mere belief in a “savior”. In Islam, this isn’t the case. Belief comes first but that’s just not it, there are other aspects linked to belief in the heart.

To put it simply, Islam calls for belief in the heart, professing by the tongue and actions by the limbs. Why so complicated you might wonder. But it isn’t really. The objective of Shari’ah is human welfare and justice. We are commanded to do certain things due to the benefit in them and are commanded to avoid certain things due to the harm in them. This life is temporary and our real abode is in the hereafter. We can be successful in life only if we live by the rules set by Allah because we’re really being tested in every move we make. In obedience to Allah there is abundant blessing and great benefit. A society without any rules to guide people will definitely lead to chaos and conflict. To avoid the complexity of such situations every society or group fixes certain rules to govern its affairs. You might remember making a “club” or a group with your friends at school, setting some rules and putting some conditions? It’s so natural. Then why should one object to the laws of God? And label them as “harsh” or “unfair”? It doesn’t make any sense.

So being a Muslim doesn’t mean having a Muslim name or Muslim parents, rather it is personal. It is not only what is in your heart but also how much of it you show in your actions. And Allah did not leave us unguided but equipped us with the most complete and perfect guidance, the Qur’an. Life may seem tough if restricted by laws, but these laws are like no other, they’re divine and without a shadow of doubt, flawless, and it’s only wise to live by them.


30 thoughts on “How Much of Islam Should You Follow?”

    1. Wa’alaikumussalaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu Anisah!
      Thank you so much! ❤ Glad you like it. It really means a lot to me! Alhamdulillah. 🙂


  1. Allah Ta aala sums it up in the verse: ” O you who believe, enter into the Deen completely and do not follow the way of shaitaan.”
    One is that one must enter into the whole Deen, unreservedly. That is accept every command, wholeheartedly, and act upon them diligently. Second is that the whole Deen must be in a person, inseparable from his being. Allah Ta aala says in the Quraan, ” Sibgatullahi. Wa man ahsanu minAllahi sibgah” Transl: The Colour( Deen) of Allah. Who can be better than Allah in colour.
    Deen must not be like a stone put in a glass of water. It just settles to the bottom without affecting the water besides displacing some water. Rather, Deen must be like a saffron put in water. Within a short time it colours the water and gives it a beautiful smell and taste and becomes inseparable. Every fibre of a believers body is coloured with Deen and moves and breathes only with the name of Allah and His commands.
    Further, Allah Ta aala gives us an ‘ultimtum’ : ” .. And certainly do not death come to you except that you are a Muslim( totally submitted yourself to Allah).” So we have to make an effort that at the time of death total Deen is in our life, ‘Qalban wa Qaaliban’ ( heart and body).
    So we have been commanded to enter into total Deen and carry on in that state till we leave this temporary abode of deception towards the real life of eternity. Allah Help, Guide, Protect us and make us a means of the Hidaayah of the whole of mankind.


    1. Beautiful analogy! Thank you.
      Jazak Allahu khayran for your valuable input! Barak Allahu feek.
      Wassalamu’alaikum wa rahmatullah.


  2. Assalamu alaikum. Ma Sha Allah, I love your post and I love how eloquently you stated the truth about Islam.
    I’ve been blogging for a while now but unfortunately I haven’t found many blogs that encourage the Islamic lifestyle. Jazaki Allah khayran

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Wa’alaikumussalam wr wb.
      I’m so glad you liked it. All praise is to Allah. Thank you so much for reading and commenting. 🙂 I really appreciate it. Jazak Allah khair.


  3. “we have set rules which are to be followed by everybody, there are no exceptions to it.” – does this mean you support the punishments set out in the Quran including amputation and stoning? :/ I truly hope not.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for reading and commenting, thepeskypotato.

      To answer your question, yes I do support every law outlined in the Qur’an.

      I understand that 7th century punishments like amputation and stoning might seem incompatible with the modern life we are used to. But it’s not like there are any established universal guidelines of what “morality” is, right? Something practised as a “norm” in one country can be considered harsh and barbaric in another. For instance, a few decades ago in India people were discriminated based on the caste they belonged to. People of the lowest category were considered to be “untouchables”. Literally. The system was adopted by the government too. Even in America and the West in general the blacks have always been considered lower in status than the whites. Merely based on color. These are man-made rules we’re talking about (and no, I don’t support this sort of racism and discrimination). So we cannot judge a religion solely based on customs and norms. Nothing’s perfect in life, there are flaws everywhere.

      But when it comes to religion, we have the interference of the All-Knowing, the Almighty; the Creator himself. Obviously He cannot make mistakes.

      Now the question is why the Qur’an, and not the Bible or any other religious scripture? The Qur’an is unique and unlike the others, in that it has been remarkably preserved. It’s authenticity is nearly undisputed and proven.

      From a humanistic perspective, these punishments do seem harsh. Fair enough. But sometimes we might dislike a thing which is in fact good for us. If our Creator has ordained something then obviously there is some benefit in it as He alone knows what’s best for us. Allah Almighty says in the Qur’an:

      “…But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.” (2:216)

      Also, looking at the big picture, these punishments serve as an expiation for the sin committed. Meaning, however atrocious the sin is (like murder), if the person suffers punishment for it in this life he will not be held accountable on the day of Judgment.

      Hope this helps. Thanks for stopping by.


      1. Well said Yusra. We believe that our sole Creator,Sustainer,Provider is only Allah. He has laid down laws and unto Him we are answerable.He is All Wise and All Knowing whereas we are deficient in all aspects. We submit totally and don’t question His commands and are proud to be His slaves and therefore never adopt an apologetic stance in any of His laws. Whatever is laid down is for our benefit and safety for humanity. The severity of punishments is more of a deterrent for man to desist from crimes which are heinous but taken as part of life in the west like adultery. That’s why punishments are public and not quietly done where no one can take lesson.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Assalamu’alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu brother

          Jazak Allah khair for your valuable input. You’ve mentioned really good points. Masha’Allah! Allahumma baarik lak. In my reply to the previous comment I forgot to mention that punishments serve as deterrents. That’s a very important detail. Thank you for pointing it out.


          1. Simple analogy for anyone to understand is when gangrene or cancer sets in a body that area is either cut off or destroyed by some therapy so that the poisonous infection doesn’t spread to other parts of the too in Shariah dangers are nipped in the bud.Allah Ta aala says,’ For you in capital punishment is life..’ I.e it appears thatone another person is being killed but in reality you are saving lives.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. That’s so true! Jazak Allah khair. May Allah ‘Azza wa Jal bless you with much more beneficial knowledge and the ability to share it with others. Ameen. Allahumma baarik lak.


          2. Thanks to both of you for clarifying; it did help me understand your perspective but has made me even more worried than before.

            I feel this is a very dangerous perspective to take. A literalist interpretation of the Qu’ran can lead to support for very extreme forms of punishment (amputation, stoning, death etc) and fuel hatred towards other religions and especially unbelievers (the Qu’ran has many hate verses against atheists, describing them in the most horrible and disrespectful ways). This is easily used by those you may call extremists to fashion laws based solely on religious books, subjugate women and carry out violent jihad. If you are saying amputation is the correct punishment then how are you really different from an extremist? In fact, how can anyone who claims to be a moderate Muslim be against such Qu’ranic punishments as belief in the authenticity and perfection of both Allah and the Qu’ran is a prerequisite for claiming to be Muslim?

            You mentioned that humans were involved in many discriminatory and immoral activities and there are many that we still continue to do; however the man-made rules are under constant reinterpretation and debate on their morality. There may be no universal guidelines of what morality is, but using our supposedly God given reasoning we have set down many guidelines to help judge morality. Simply accepting what religion says leads to no progress even when we should realize that discrimination on the base of colour, gender, religion should not exist. For instance, the Qu’ran does not condemn slavery, rather it seems to encourage it by providing guidelines for how to treat slaves. It explicitly gives women half the inheritance of their brothers and also values her testimony half as much as a man’s, both of which are discrimination no matter what reasoning or excuses you provide. It states clearly and repeatedly that non-believers are the worst of creatures, the vilest of animals, dehumanizes then by comparing them to cattle and dogs.

            As a counter example, the movement to guarantee equal rights to homosexuals is one of the moral triumphs of our age and yet this is opposed largely on religious grounds that consenting adults who wish to be together and are harming nobody in the process are somehow committing sin. Although our morality is evolving as we are, the Qu’ran remains in the 7th century and is sadly not questioned by believers. A reinterpretation may be necessary at this stage if our modern ideas of morality are to be compatible with that of Islam.


            1. Hey,

              If you don’t my asking, are you an atheist or a deist? Because if you believe in a God and still question the significance of a scripture, then we can discuss further on the arguments you’ve presented. But if you don’t believe in a Creator to begin with, there’s no point in debating whether the 7th century interpretations of the Qur’an apply today or a reinterpretation is needed. :/

              Ah, never mind, I’ll try to answer your questions anyway.

              Firstly, the laws stated in the Qur’an are meant to be obeyed. We cannot pick and choose what suits us. There are no two ways about it. However, the implementation of the law is bound by specific criteria and varies with respect to the sin/crime committed and the circumstances surrounding it. For instance, for stoning to take place for adultery there are certain conditions which must be met like the testimony of four eye-witnesses, the accurate description of the act or confession by those involved. It is practically impossible to fulfill even one of these conditions, which means no punishment as certainty cannot be overruled by doubt.

              Secondly, the Qur’an is not just any book with a chronological narrative, an introduction and a conclusion. So you cannot judge it solely based on cherry picked verses. In order to understand it’s message we must look at it as a whole.

              There a few points to consider:
              1) The Qur’an did not come down as one complete book; rather it was revealed over a period of twenty three years.

              2) Every verse revealed has a reason behind it. You won’t have any verse or chapter without a context. Like suppose someone tells you, “You did a good job and therefore you shall be rewarded with that which you were promised.”
              Now, if you didn’t know what the context was, you’d wonder “What reward and what did I even do?” But if you did, it puts everything in perspective. Similarly, all the seemingly “disrespectful” and “hate verses against the atheists” will make sense if you understand the reason behind their revelation. Most of these verses refer to specific events that took place during the Prophet’s (salAllahu alaihi wa sallam) time. These verses do not classify all nonbelievers as corrupt or evil. But specifically those that cause corruption and indulge in wrongdoing; at some places the reference is made to the Jews of Prophet Musa (alaihi salaam) or that of ‘Isa (as), or the nonbelievers of Arabia and the like. Allah ta’aala has mentioned these narratives in the Qur’an so we may learn from them. There is no point in taking offence because that is not why these verses were revealed. And that’s definitely not what’s intended.

              3) Customs and practices like that of slavery existed among the Arabs when the Qur’an was revealed. Those that conformed to the teachings of Islam were reformed and those that did not were prohibited. Yes, every human being has a right to live a free life and this is what Islam teaches. Like you said it gives “guidelines of how to treat slaves”; but why bother? Because the idea was to gradually eliminate the harsh practices and inhumane behavior the slaves were subjected to. If you notice most of the verses talk about emancipating, hardly any on capturing and enslaving.

              Also, there is nothing “Islamic” about the extremists who (mis)use the Qur’an to meet their evil ends. They’re like those people who merely claimed to be believers but went against the commands of Allah ta’aala by twisting the meanings of divine verses revealed to their prophets. People throughout history have used religious scriptures to make them say what they want. Does that mean the religion supports these people? Or that just because some extremists misuse it, it must be false and hence should be rejected?

              So if today it is morally correct to legalize homosexuality then perhaps tomorrow legalizing incest and pedophilia will be the way forward?


              1. Actually Yusra I prepared a long answer but also decided if one doesn’t believe in Allah at all or has a very vague form of a belief then there is no point debating. We believe in the Quraan as absolute and there is no question of interpretation according to our whims leave alone reinterpretation. The sole purpose of man’s creation is to recognise and worship his Creator so the greatest crime in the court of the Almighty is Disbelief. Strange that animals recognise and rely on their Creator and man with his intellect denies. Islam is the only way that has a full code of inheritance . Unfortunately, ignorance of the faith makes one comment without seeing in which situations a woman gets half the share of a man not understanding that there are situations a woman gets half of the inheritance and sometimes women get two thirds. As far as slavery goes as Yusra said it existed prior to Islam and took a whole new definition and angle after Islam. Slaves are in not in Islam like how the westerners captured free people from West Africa and put them in chains and whipped them and treated them sub human. With the advent of Islam the slaves were like the household and some preferred to remain under their masters due to their kindness. From the last words of our beloved prophet Muhammad s.a.w was about being careful in the treatment of slaves. Like Yusra said so much emphasis and reward is there in Islam to emancipate slaves and Islam history bears testimony to this fact. Islam is a way of peace through and through. Like Yusra said terrorism has no place in Islam and if someone is not naive but has insight he will see that what is happening in the world is not motivated by Islam but other forces. There is no killing of innocent people,especially women and children in Islam. If you say homosexuality was a triumph then I’m sure you’ll feel sleeping with animals would be a greater triumph as it would be going further. It has already been recognised in the west. There was an article headline: “Mr Clifton marries his dog”. As regards witnesses here you should see why a woman’s evidence requires two and there are situations where a sole woman’s evidence is accepted. If you feel morality has evolved it is rather man has moved from modesty and respect to immorality and disgrace. Media is full of sexual abuse,rape,molestation, incest,defiling from the presidents down to the sweepers, from professionals down to labourers. So you can reinterpret your man made ‘(f)laws’. We are totally at peace and content with what our Beloved Allah has blessed us with and will strive to share it with mankind who are wondering aimlessly looking for some form of peace.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Thank you for the detailed reply brother. And especially for answering the questions on a woman’s share in inheritance and regarding witness. Somehow I missed that part. I really appreciate your participation. May Allah Ta’ala reward you and keep you steadfast on His deen. Ameen. Jazak Allah khair.

                  You’re absolutely right, disbelief despite poseessing the correct knowledge is indeed the gravest sin a person can commit. Afterall Islam is the only way to salvation. The complexity in the design and functioning of the universe is clear evidence for the existence of Allah, the Creator of this universe. It also points to the inevitable reality of the afterlife, accountability and judgment.

                  Clearly, the existence of seven billion people on this earth cannot be for no reason, can it thepeskypotato?


                2. I’ll just reply to the first part that both of you raised because I find it quite interesting that you brought it up. I thank both of you for replying although you feel there is no point in debating with me unless I am a believer. However, I don’t think whether someone is Muslim, Christian, religious, atheist, deist, agnostic whatever, matters when it comes to discussing religion or religious text. Whether someone supports a particular political party or not should not eliminate them from being able to debate or discuss political ideologies and stances and whether a reinterpretation is needed. And religion is an ideology like any other.

                  There’s a fundamental belief of whether a god exists and then there is a more nuanced belief of whether it is good that people believe in god and then there is a further belief in particular instructions and their interpretations as laid out in religious scripture. If you believe the way both of you seem to then there may not be any point in debating; “We believe in the Quraan as absolute and there is no question of interpretation according to our whims leave alone reinterpretation”. If the debate is that God revealed the Qu’ran, He is perfect, hence it is perfect and thus everything in it is right, then that is a circular argument and pretty pointless. On the other hand, I wish to understand whether a literal or contextual interpretation of the Qu’ran is better from a moral standpoint; I have not yet found a logical and sound reason for daughters getting half the share of sons (yes, i understand that some women do get equal inheritance to men and some do not, but no, I do not understand how this is objectively fair) or a woman’s testimony being half of a man’s (no, I don’t think the increased possibility of a woman making a mistake is a good argument & feel that this is one place which might require reinterpretation based on the current context); treating slaves well is mentioned as well as instances of freeing them, but abolishing slavery is not, making it seem that slavery is ok in a literalist interpretation as long as you treat your slaves nicely. Are equality, slavery and capital punishment moral ideals we can debate and discuss? Then why should you only debate this with Muslims?

                  I agree that “people throughout history have used religious scriptures to make them say what they want” and honestly I feel that this has included both positive and negative interpretations with both of you taking an overly positive view of matters. I will reply to those later I guess.


                  1. No, that’s not what we meant. I’m more than happy to discuss with you and I’m sorry if my comment came off as dismissive. What I was trying to say is that if you (or any atheist for that matter) don’t believe in a Creator then how is promoting a “reinterpretation” of God’s Scripture of any benefit to you? It’s like saying, “I know she’s a liar but I really think her speech should be reassessed.” They’re like two contradictory ideas. You get the drift? I have no problem discussing with you. It’s just that it kinda didn’t make sense to just go on with the discussion without a clear direction. But, I think now I understand your standpoint. Thank you for clarifying it.

                    There is a difference between the Qur’an’s “text” (which is absolute, perfect) and it’s “interpretation” (which can have flaws). Any person lacking correct knowledge may end up misunderstanding the Qur’an if they don’t refer to the authentic sources. We’re human and it’s in our nature to err. There’s a hadith which talks about how even the companions misunderstood a revealed verse which later the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wa sallam) clarified for them. How’d you interpret the following verse?

                    “Those who believe and obscure not their belief by wrongdoing, theirs is safety; and they are rightly guided.” [6:82]

                    If we go by the literalist method, the verse seems to exclude any person who sins from being rightly guided. Wrongdoing includes all types of sin, minor, major; and nobody is free from it. Creates a problem for us, right? The problem, however, is not in the verse but in our understanding of it.

                    And this is exactly how the Sahabah interpreted the verse too. But when they approached the Prophet about it, he replied,

                    “It is not as you all think. It is no more than what Luqmaan said to his son, “Verily, shirk (associating partners with God) is the greatest form of transgression” [31:13].” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 53)

                    He was referring to another verse present elsewhere in the Qur’an. He clarified for them that the broader meaning of wrongdoing was not intended in the first verse; rather it was used to refer specifically to shirk (association).

                    We cannot simply interpret the Qur’an however we like. There are certain guidelines that must be followed and certain criteria to be fulfilled. I’ll mention them briefly here:
                    1) The Qur’an itself: foremost method while interpreting. Something ambiguously stated in a verse may be explained in another verse. Hence I stated earlier that one must look at the Qur’an as a whole and not cherry pick.
                    2) The Hadith/Sunnah: if a probable explanation isn’t found in the Qur’an then the second step is to look for it in the hadiths.
                    3) Linguistic: if neither the Qur’an nor Sunnah has an explanation for a given verse then it can be interpreted according to its apparent meaning. But it shouldn’t go against the first two sources.

                    Also, in order to “interpret” the Qur’an you must:
                    1) Know Arabic. You cannot interpret the English translation of it and expect it to be accurate.
                    2) Know Arabic grammar and everything that comes along with it. Which means you should be able to understand high level Arabic poetry and classical works.
                    3) Be a scholar of Islamic Studies, meaning well-versed in Hadith (knowledge of the sound and weak narrations, trustworthy narrators), Seerah (biography of the Prophet), Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and stuff.

                    You see here’s a LOT of scholarly work involved in interpreting the Qur’an. Now you know how people end up “misusing” the scripture. Because they do not have the necessary skills.

                    The rest I’ll address later insha’Allah. 🙂


                    1. Dear Yusra, thanks for your reply. Like I said before I don’t think the discussing of religion is something that should be restricted only to believers. Religion is an ideology like any other and as such it’s more about saying I don’t agree with you or let us discuss your chosen interpretation in a different way. Even though someone may not believe in a Creator he or she may have an opinion of Scripture and would be entitled to participate in its interpretation because of the influence these religious values have on their lives. I may not be a Democrat but I can still discuss democrat values and whether they make sense, especially since other people’s political views shape the world I live in. Moreover, as I will discuss later, people need to be able to say that the values of Democrats do not align with the values of feminism and hence they are not Democrats.

                      I see that you have listed a range of qualifications that someone needs to have in order to interpret the Qu’ran. Most of these are to do with understanding words & sentences written in the holy book. However one thing you seem to have left out is knowledge of other systems and how those interact with Islam. I think it’s essential that an interpretation of the Quran includes how the different interpretations mesh with other ideologies. In fact someone who does not have any of the 3 qualifications you mentioned should also be able to take existing interpretations by Islamic scholars and place them into various ideological buckets. It is important that a holistic understanding not only contains what the Qu’ran tells us to do but also interprets it in light of various perspectives.

                      I’d like to give an example to try to explain this; the Quran contains guidelines regarding debt testimony in which it states that two women should be present as witnesses “so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her” (Qu’ran 2:282). This would seem unequal since in modern day legal proceedings women are considered just as reliable as men. As such, this particular interpretation does not go with the ideals of feminism which aims to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women.

                      Now I’ve seen various justifications of this verse. One of the most common ones is the discussion of context – the Quran was revealed at a time when women had very little participation in legal matters. As such for seventh century Arabia this was a move in the feminist direction towards a more equal state. However it is imperative to understand that this is not a feminist guideline for the modern world.

                      Another interpretation I’ve seen is also contextual (and maybe this is what Sabeelurrashaad was alluding to) and focuses on the fact that women at the time did not have much education or experience in handling financial matters including debt. This means that they were less able than their male counterparts in understanding debt related issues and hence having two women would make sense in that period. However in today’s day and age when women have achieved a great deal of financial independence and often have knowledge of debt that surpasses their male counterparts, this line may no longer seem relevant or may be in need of reinterpretation.

                      If scholars conclude that the reason for the discrimination in this verse is because women at the time were mostly less knowledgeable then I can definitely see a need for reinterpretation based on the current climate in which women are just as knowledgeable as men. Like I’ve said before, I wish to understand whether a literal or contextual interpretation of the Qu’ran is better; a literal interpretation is not alignable with a feminist ideology and may alienate many people and a contextual explanation as provided by certain scholars indicates a need for a re-contextualization (if the term reinterpretation seems too strong) based on the social circumstances of today.

                      Many other verses may spark a need for re-contextualization as circumstances have change dramatically in the last 1500 years and the explanations given by scholars need to keep in mind this developing landscape.


                    2. Assalamu’alaikum brother, I don’t think it’s useless…insha’Allah it might benefit someone some time in the future. And I’m guessing she understands spoken Urdu, right thepeskypotato? 😉 (No offence sis. It’s all in good faith.)


                    3. Let me translate my words for skypotato so he/she can see it is not uncivil. I said to yusra not to answer as there is no benefit in it. I used the word be faaidah not be kaar. My reason is that you want to discuss a point which not open to discussion I. e re contextualisation of the Quraan. And our way is not to just have a theoretical discussion. If a person has a desire to know the truth then one can proceed but just for discussion is of no benefit as Islaam is practical and Yusra has put sufficient arguments in this regard.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    4. Assalamu’alaikum wa rahmatullah brother

                      Your comment wasn’t uncivil in the slightest. I think I made a mistake in understanding it as my Urdu isn’t perfect and maybe I shouldn’t have phrased it the way I did. I’m sorry. But I like the fact that you have a very clear stance on the type of discussion one should engage in. And I agree that if it isn’t beneficial it’s best avoided. You’re right that there are certain topics that are not open to discussion (like the nature of Allah Ta’aala, predestination etc). But while you and I know the reasons and understand why something like the “re-contextualization of the Qur’an” can fall under this category thepeskypotato does not. So it becomes our responsibility to explain the Islamic perspective to her.Through this discussion I only intend to convey the message of Islam.

                      I understand that neither of us will change our minds in the end. But that is not important. Doesn’t Islam teach us that there is “no compulsion in religion”? However, at this point, I’d like to mention that I’m not putting feminism or any other ideology/religion on an equal footing with Islam. I firmly believe that there is only one true religion, Islam.

                      Jazak Allah khair. Allahumma baarik lak. May Allah Ta’aala keep us steadfast on His Deen and guide us all to the Straight Path. Ameen.


                    5. JazaakAllah for understanding. Maaf if I seemed firm. There are many a thing that is only understood with the noor of eemaan or hidayah so we make dua Allah grants hidayah to all.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    6. So true. Ameen! Wa antum fa jazakumullahu khairan. 🙂

                      You don’t need to apologize. 🙂 May Allah ‘Azza wa jal forgive our shortcomings. Ameen


                    7. Dear sister, thank you for your reply. You seem to possess much knowledge about Islam and it’s principles. However, as I see it, your interpretation of it is incorrect. I’m willing to address all your points, but I’ll do it gradually since I have already put off a part of it. Incidentally, I was staying at my grandparents place the past two week and so I couldn’t reply to your post. I returned home just yesterday and insha’Allah I’ll try sending you a response soon. 🙂


                    8. Thanks Yusra. It’s nice to get civil replies =P. Even if someone doesn’t understand Urdu, there’s always Google translate right? I know it is a useless conversation – in the end neither you nor I (& definitely not Sabeer) will change our minds – but maybe in the process we can learn something new. Or maybe somebody can read through this later and learn.

                      There’s many specific points raised by both of you that I could also reply to but I’d rather discuss the above one in more detail; the idea of re-contextualization based on the changing circumstances of the modern world. Looking forward to your perspective =)

                      Liked by 1 person

                    9. No problem. You’re right; really hope somebody benefits. 🙂

                      I haven’t even started it yet, but I will try the best I can insha’Allah. Thanks.


Feel free to share your thoughts! (:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s