Scholars Or Charlatans? Akram Nadwi is the Author of Confusion


By The Sultan’s Jester

I very often get people asking me about which scholars, classes and lectures I recommend. The enquiry always fills me with dread: those who have proffered such a question are usually on a journey to become more ‘practising’ in the Islamic faith, and with the best of intentions they allocate their time and money to the industry that has grown up around ‘seeking knowledge’ and ‘Islamic classes’. These poor seekers are in a very dangerous position: they are obviously at a crossroads in their life and are wanting to make a change. Hence they are both emotionally and intellectually vulnerable and malleable. This is the very same reason why an inordinate number of Western and other youth who have joined extremist groups are those who have gone from being ‘non-practising’ to ‘practising’ Muslims suddenly – usually too suddenly: the hungry man is easily fed poison.

It is a lamentable fact that the overwhelming bulk of institutes, classes and above all scholars, which are after the allegiance, money and time of Muslims, are of a dreadfully poor nature. The singular skill of the majority of ‘Islamic’ speakers and teachers is the ability to read Arabic in addition to generous publicity and funding from their institutes and from interests abroad (frequently Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries).

Regrettably, the problem is not confined to a small segment of Muslim scholars, and just as how many of those ‘speaking for’ atheists in the public sphere, such as Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, are an embarrassment to civility and scholarship, as is often recognised by atheists themselves, Muslims have the same, or rather worse affliction of being subjected to ‘popularisers’ and teachers of religion who display such woeful knowledge and coherence that they serve as both a deterrent to non-Muslims and a handicap to believers.

After being brought the following talk by the famous UK scholar Dr Akram Nadwi, I was astonished at the egregious errors committed in the name of not only religion but also at the affront to the vocation of teaching. Needless to say, people will be offended, but forewarning the laity is of far greater importance, since the sheer number of errors and points of confusion presented by this well-known scholar, who has been attached to various institutes as well as being prolific in teaching courses, was truly horrifying. We are all lacking in some subjects, and I myself do not try to give public talks on subjects I am not competent in (which are many in number), but Sheikh Nadwi illustrates the cavalier attitude of nearly all of his colleagues: although he is clearly at a loss about Islamic philosophy and even on occasion his own specialist subject (Arabic), he nonetheless employs offhand statements and critiques of everything from linguistics to logic, as well as what is par for the course with Muslim scholars nowadays – an unbearable amount of fact less emotional blackmail and amateur theatrics. But he is not to be singled out: virtually all Islamic scholars think this appellation of ‘scholar’ is a ‘Carte Blanche’ to opine about everything from how to make love to your partner to Quantum Mechanics. They have made full use of the public’s ignorance of the less than comprehensive syllabus under which such individuals are schooled.

Since I am constantly asked about ‘scholars’ and ‘courses’ by readers and students, I am forced to demonstrate the degree of incompetence displayed in just a short part of what I believe was a paid course. Having used Sheikh Nadwi as an egregious example, the sad reality is that I could have used very many others. It ails our community that so many of our Muslim youth will throw away precious years of their lives and efforts in the service of the misinformation that irresponsible and vainglorious scholars spread about so carelessly. I hope that some of you can watch this and be warned and hence be on your guard against these dangerous individuals who offer all kinds of incorrect or inappropriate instruction under the guise of ‘scholars’.

I have included the video and the ‘timestamps’ of when the problems I wish to discuss take place.

‘Surah Mulk’, a talk by Dr Akram Nadwi


At 7.42 minutes, Sheikh Akram Nadwi says that The Quran wasn’t sent to Greece, Rome or China and those who had philosophy and knowledge. The reason for that is so that they can come to Quran without philosophy. [But Quran speaks about why it was sent to illiterate people, we will see what it says below]

9.37: He says one of the conditions of Quran is that it is for ummis i.e. illiterate people.

10.00: Come to the Quran with no knowledge.

Right from the outset, Shiekh Akram Nadwi demonstrates the type of incoherent doublespeak which characterises many if not most ‘Islamic’ talks: at the beginning he commendably says that there are two things needed to obtain the blessings of the Quran;

  1. Thinking
  2. Following

Repeatedly, at 31.00, and again at 37.15 and 46.10, he tells people that they must ‘think’ and even that they will go to Hell for not making use of their God given intellectual faculties. This would be hugely beneficial, but as with the use of science by such speakers, it is merely a ploy – for how is it that he says that you have to think and analyse the Quran and yet comes back to say that you shouldn’t use your own understanding? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. He says that you have to understand it as the salaf (first three or so generations) understood it. What this actually means is that you should in fact never think about it but just read what the salaf said about these verses and just accept that. So what was the point of all that prior mention of ‘thinking’ and ‘understanding’? As with many speakers and scholars, it is merely to give the semblance of intellectuality and critical thinking to Western Muslim youth, who long to frame their faith in these terms. But Dr Nadwi has no intention of encouraging people to actually think about the Quran:

At 8.47 minutes:

He says ‘they want to put their understanding upon Quran’. Here he contradicts himself again. What are people who have come to this talk meant to think? First he says ‘think and understand’, then here he says don’t ‘put your own understanding’. So whose understanding am I supposed to take, and what manner of Orwellian doublespeak is this? He is in fact trying to say; ‘take the understanding of salaf as explained by our chosen scholars (in his case, Salafi archfiend Ibn Taimia, and he has done another lecture/course about taking only the principles of Ibn Taimia in understanding the Quran). So, his message is perhaps more plainly;

Quran is sent so you can think about it. But you are not allowed to understand it in your own way, but only by the understanding of Ibn Taimia

So why do public speakers such as Sheikh Nadwi not just say that instead of trying to seduce the audience with faux rationalism?

He says, most offensively, that the reason why the Quran wasn’t sent to Greece (and other places such as China), was because they had ‘philosophy’ and other knowledge, which is ‘bad’. Rather, according to him (for it certainly isn’t according to God), the Quran has to be sent to illiterate people so they can understand it, since philosophy will block your understanding, and he even states frankly that illiteracy is the desired condition to receive the Quran (see later).

Of course, as a Salafi partisan and admirer of Ibn Taimia, Dr Nadwi is militantly opposed to the philosophers. But even the most committed partisan has to question the logic of punishing whole nations of Greeks, Chinese and Romans for the fact that they had some practitioners of philosophy, in effect making philosophy like or in fact worse than ‘Original Sin’. Furthermore, it means that the practice of ‘philosophy’ (Dr Nadwi never makes clear what he means by this word and just a moment ago he was alternating between rationalism and blind adherence to the salaf) is worse, according to Sheikh Nadwi, than child murder and idol worship – since God could send the Quran to a nation of Meccan polytheists who practiced infanticide but resolutely not to Greek Philosophers. This is shocking to say the least.

What is really disturbing is that ‘philosophy’, in the usage of the Greeks (and indeed the Islamic ‘Falsafa’) included everything from Physics and Mathematics to poetry and musical theory. Is Sheikh Nadwi saying all of these are reprehensible in the opinion of God? Furthermore, what do the Chinese, whom he similarly condemns as being unworthy of Gods guidance, mean by ‘philosophy’? Is there an equivalent word in their language and could he be mistaking Confucian ethics for a system of metaphysics? Not knowing these things is not a problem – but condemning a whole nation or race whilst not knowing them is egregious. And how do Chinese or Greek viewers feel about this unwarranted disparagement of their civilizational contributions?

This is in fact completely unacceptable – but let’s look at the Quran for clarifications as to the reason of why it was sent to illiterate people;

And this [Qur’an] is a Book We have revealed [which is] blessed, so follow it and fear Allah that you may receive mercy.

[We revealed it] lest you say, “The Scripture was only sent down to two groups before us, but we were of their study unaware,”

Or lest you say, “If only the Scripture had been revealed to us, we would have been better guided than they.” So there has [now] come to you a clear evidence from your Lord and a guidance and mercy. Then who is more unjust than one who denies the verses of Allah and turns away from them? We will recompense those who turn away from Our verses with the worst of punishment for their having turned away. 6; 155-157

So the reason is that for others, including the Greeks (who were very largely Christians and not ‘philosophers’ by this time), God has already sent them a book and guidance. God sent the Quran to Quraish because they didn’t have any guidance beforehand…nothing to do with illiteracy or philosophy. Where did Akram Nadwi get this from, other than his inveterate Salafi antipathy to Philosophy and reason?

Let’s see what Imam Tabari, who died 310 hijra (so he is one of these ‘salaf’ that Dr Nadwi insists on so much) said about this issue (from his ‘tafseer’ (exegesis of Quran) volume 10, page 6 – follow in red):

‘‘The best interpretation of the verse according to me is the one which says; this is book is blessed, we’ve revealed it to you to so you cannot say ”the Book was revealed only to two groups before us”! And these two groups God mentioned, and mentioned that he sent his book to his Prophet Muhammad so mushriks [polytheists, specifically of Mecca] won’t be able to to say; We didn’t get any book to follow, nor  have we been ordered nor forbidden from anything. So there is no proof against us about the things we do and don’t do. That’s because God didn’t send us a prophet and a book. So proof can be only against two groups who have got a book before us, Jews and Christians…’

Further Tabari mentioned the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet) and Tabein (successors of those companions) from whom this interpretation narrated.

Just see the rest of the pages I have scanned here. The very same thing is mentioned in ‘Tafseer ibn Katheer’, ‘Tafseer Qurtubi’, ‘Durr Manthoor’ and others. So Dr Nadwi was on the one hand insisting his audience jettison their reason and intellect and follow the salaf, but when these same salaf did not prove opportune to disparage his hated ‘Greeks’ and ‘philosophers’, he disregarded them in turn, even when they were Salafist favourites such as Ibn Katheer and Qurtubi. This is most disingenuous and partisan in the extreme, made worse by his obstinate refusal to acknowledge his conflicting interests and sectarian affiliation (i.e Salafism), which is clearly colouring all he has said from the outset.

This, namely gaining scholarly knowledge, is the very reason that people pay and give their time to attend such courses – but this information was substituted with an extremist and incoherent diatribe against philosophers. That, of course, is  Dr Nadwi’s (and all Salafis) prerogative – but it cannot be at the expense of fragrant misrepresentation of the Quran and classical Islam. In any case, why was the Quran was revealed to the illiterate Quraish? According to Dr Nadwi because they can understand it because they don’t have philosophy as others do. But according to God and all of the Muslim scholars, because others had their books and Prophets. But the Quraish didn’t. That is why God sent a book and a Prophet to them – so that they cannot complain that they didn’t get any.

Sadly, Akram Nadwi is blissfully ignorant that by the seventh century, most Greeks and Romans were in fact Christian. He is confused about the Classical period and the flourishing of Greek philosophy in Socrates time and the much later revelation of the Quran, after the fall of the western Roman Empire and some three centuries after Rome (and Greece) embraced Christianity. But that was long before the Quran. As for the history of religion in China, I hazard to say Dr Nadwi should say nothing as he can be expected to be similarly uninformed and careless. 

Rumi is a Kaafir!

9.00 Sheikh Nadwi, tells us that the famous Persian poet and mystic Jalal ad Din Rumi is desirous of re-writing the Quran. He appears to be saying that Rumi accepted the challenge of God about (re)writing the Quran.

Having followed Salafist protocol and immediately, with his first breath, bashed ‘philosophers’ and rationalists, Sheikh Nadwi scarcely pauses before he moves on to their preferred next target – the Sufis.

I am aware of no statement by Rumi nor any other authority in Islam (apart from of course the militantly anathematising branch of the Wahhabo-Salafis, amongst which many of the Deobandis must regrettably be counted too) which says that Rumi attempted to take up the challenges of God and write or rewrite the Quran or something like it:

Here, for instance, are the three challenges of God:

Say, “If mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants.” 17;88

Or do they say, “He invented it”? Say, “Then bring ten surahs like it that have been invented and call upon [for assistance] whomever you can besides Allah , if you should be truthful.” 10;13

And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah , if you should be truthful. 2;23

Or do they say [about the Prophet], “He invented it?” Say, “Then bring forth a surah like it and call upon [for assistance] whomever you can besides Allah , if you should be truthful.” 10;38

Rumi never wanted to rewrite the Quran any more than Shakespeare is guilty of rewriting the Bible just for having been eloquent. His book of ”Masnawi Ma’nawi” is a collection of wise stories, and nothing to do with accepting the challenge of God. We can’t tell what Akram Nadwi means by this statement but he is at the very least dangerously irresponsible – sadly, many teachers, especially of the salafist variety, do their best to channel their eager students minds and energies towards their own sectarian debates and prejudices – Nadwi has done this by shoe horning in a highly offensive statement about Rumi and by strong inference, Sufism.

Therein lies my contention – people come to these types of talks because they don’t have knowledge and do not know what is Islam’s approach to science or philosophy or who Rumi is. In the space of just ten minutes, Sheikh Nadwi grossly misinforms his audience about these and more, dangerously in line with his sectarian affiliation to the violently anti-Sufi Ibn Taimia. Sadly, Salafis love to glorify Ibn Taimia and insult Sufis anyhow and anytime they can.

God versus the Scholars?

9.37 Dr Nadwi says that one of the conditions of Quran is that it is for ummis i.e. illiterate people.

10.00: ‘come to Quran with no knowledge’.

So, in order to understand Quran, he explicitly states that there are two conditions: 1. Be illiterate 2. Have no knowledge

I’ve explained why the Quran was revealed to the Quraish. Most of the Quraish were illiterate so that is why Quran uses the appellation ‘illiterate’, but it wasn’t a condition of understanding it. Dr Nadwi is worryingly confused and I can only think what the audience will make of this.

The Quran says;

Say, “Believe in it or do not believe. Indeed, those who were given knowledge before it – when it is recited to them, they fall upon their faces in prostration, 17;107

God is essentially saying; O illiterate guys, believe in it or don’t believe, but those who are not illiterate, who were given knowledge before the Quran was sent, when it is read to them, they fall upon their faces in prostration. 

So what God is saying is exactly opposite to what Sheikh Nadwi says. I.e. being illiterate is not something glorious, and having knowledge is not something bad. Also God says;

And these examples We present to the people, but none will understand them except those of knowledge. 29;43

According to God, the condition of understanding the examples of the Quran is to have knowledge. Regrettably, this infatuation with illiteracy is common amongst scholars. It likely has its origin in the spurious argument that the Prophet Muhammad was illiterate and hence incapable of composing the Quran. Since Muslims contend that the Quran is not amenable to human composition or even alteration, the illiteracy (or lack thereof) of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is of no consequence to the Quran’s authenticity. The anti-rationalist streak which Nadwi and Ibn Taimia represent has found its fullest flowering in anathematising the poor Greeks and Chinese for their sciences and now even the glorification of illiteracy – are they seriously insinuating that had the Prophet wished to learn to read he could not have done so, thereby denigrating him benath a huge segment of mankind? And in any case, there are compelling proofs that the Prophet could read (it would have been little use for him to see the ‘Preserved Tablet’ for example if he couldn’t).

It also shows how grossly out of touch people like Dr Nadwi are with the norms and temperaments of the societies in which they ply their ill trade – advertising the alleged illiteracy of the Prophet (pbuh) or Sahabah without context is not exactly going to endear them to modern non-Muslims or even Muslims. These types of banal utterances are often supplemented with apocryphal stories of Umar (RA) burning or destroying libraries.

Millions of People are Equal to God in his Attribute, So Everyone Goes to Paradise…Except God, Because He Didn’t Do What He Said He Would (i.e Guide Us)

10.50 Sheikh Nadwi says that ‘no language can contain the word of God beside Arabic’.

Unfortunately, there are only two possibilities from what he said, both of which are completely wrong:

  1. The ‘Word of God’, which is his Attribute, can be contained only in the Arabic language of the Jahili (pre-Islamic or ”ignorant”) period
  2. The message of God about guidance only can be expressed in Arabic of Jahili time.

I hope Dr Nadwi and his cohorts will give me some latitude here, since he in a most uncouth and unqualified way accused Rumi of trying to disseminate a rival and an edit of the Quran: If Akram Nadwi means it is the first possibility, then this is shirk or associating partners with God in his unique attributes. That is because we Muslims say that no one equals any of the Attributes of God. But if you accept what Sheikh Nadwi said then all of the Jahili [pre-Islamic Arabs] including Abu Jahl, Abu Lahab and others equal God in His Attribute of ‘Speech’ and they can say something similar to the Quran. If it is the second one, then people who didn’t speak in Jahili Arabic (including people of our time) are excused from accountability because they don’t understand the guidance of God – and no other language including Arabic (of the non-Jahili variety) can express the guidance. Which is bizarre.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, at 13.00, Dr Nadwi says that one of the ‘conditions of the Quran’ is that people must have Arabic language. These types of unqualified and confusing statements are exactly what teachers are supposed to be removing, not perpetuating. This very obviously makes no sense because most of the people who live by and follow the message of the Quran, including Arabs, are not able to understand Quranic Arabic. So what was the point of this incoherent aside?

Also, if no language can contain the guidance or ‘words’ of God, then is Akram Nadwi saying that the Torah, Injeel, Ten Commandments and Zaboor etc were all not the word of God? Surely this is manifest nonsense?

Inventing More Conditions and Barriers to Understanding the Quran

13.10: Dr Nadwi claims that a condition of understanding the Quran is that you have to understand that you are from the family of Ibrahim (the Prophet Abraham).

As far as I know 99% of people are unaware of this issue nor have any way of finding out if they are from his family, nor are likely to be related to the Prophet Abraham etc etc. So does it mean  that they don’t understand the Quran? Also, where is there this condition? Why did the Prophet not encourage the people to assume that they are the ‘family’ of Abraham? Also, if someone is not Jewish or Arabian, will he not understand Quran? So, only the family of Abraham understand Quran. But not all of his family, but only those who know that they are related to Ibrahim. Do we accept this?

God said that the Quran is for everyone, including those not from the family of Abraham. If Dr Nadwi is being ‘metaphorical’, which it seems, then what is the point of confusing people like this, and telling them they are ‘the family of Abraham’, when clearly most people or at least many, are not?

Regrettably, many people just take these kinds of statements from scholars at face value and parrot them. Hence, for their time and money, they have neither gained knowledge nor the tools of critical thinking, thus becoming exactly like those types of blind respondents that are chastised in Islam and The Quran repeatedly.

Make Up ‘Principles’ as You Go

14.38 Dr Nadwi asserts that ‘a sign’ of understanding the Quran is that you cry.

This is another statement that the keen student just takes on board but it is emotional posturing and clearly devoid of any value. The student’s enthusiasm is not even rewarded with a feel good song or chant but simply hollow diatribe. It is well known that the Sahaba wouldn’t cry at or upon understanding the Quran. Dr Nadwi is using one verse which is describing a specific occasion of a Christian delegation who came to the Prophet and cried – but he is generalising it to everyone. Why do this? Does it mean that millions of great scholars who understand the Quran but didn’t cry in fact never really understood it?

Why carry on making up principles for no reason? To get a rise out of the audience? But that is the job of the Televangelist, the Politician or a Southern Baptist Preacher on a funding drive: scholars are there to teach and instruct, not to engage in inappropriate emotional masturbation of the audience. Yet as anyone who has attended enough of these talks and has any part of his brain engaged knows, that is their main constituent.

You Have to be Ignorant, You Have to Have Knowledge, But Don’t Have Knowledge…Huh?!

In a way it is ‘fortunate’ that the recurring motif of this talk is the vacillating and contradictory definition of and relationship with ‘knowledge’, since it characterises most Islamic teaching and polemics nowadays; continuously talking about ‘what makes sense’ and ‘logic’, and then conspicuously failing to apply them to their own favourite scholars, narrations or hadith. Imam Razi likened those who use intellect to persuade people of the truth of Islam and then demand that upon becoming Muslim the critical faculties are abandoned, to tricksters who invalidate the very proof by which they attested Islam.

15.21: He quotes a verse where God says; The ones who have been given a knowledge before it [i.e. before the Quran]…

The previous verse is the one that he uses to ‘prove’ that you have to cry if you understand the Quran. But previously he said that a condition of understanding Quran is that you must not have ‘knowledge’. Here you see he is quoting the verse which says that the ones who have been given knowledge before it [The Quran]…then he uses their crying as a sign of them understanding…how come? Which is ‘right’ – not having knowledge in order to understand the Quran, or crying?

Or rather, more pertinently, what is the point of this confusing and contradictory diversion?

Did Abraham Disobey God?

21.36; Sheikh Nadwi says that Abraham explained the foundation of religion and Moses came to explain the sharia (i.e the rules or rituals), and that the Quran explained both.

Again, this is simply absurd as it means that the people before Abraham had no part of religion (neither foundation nor rules), and that people before Moses were not practicing at all. So what did the prophet Noah bring? What did Prophet Yusuf, and others, practise?

Whatever Sheikh Nadwi means by this, do these kinds of strange and inappropriate statements contribute anything to the enlightenment of the audience. Yet we see that his prolegomena is simply littered with such utterances. This is extremely common in Islamic lectures but virtually unheard of in secular and academic ones, and contributes no small part to the degeneracy of learning in Islamic studies we see today.

Also, it is very well known that each single one of the Prophets used to pray – and praying is sharia or ‘rules’ anyway, so this statement is pointless and factually incorrect (even an incorrect statement can have merit if it is made in the service of a point). Actually, the prophet Abraham prayed twice a day before Moses, so Dr Nadwi has erred completely. 

God also mentioned some of the issues that were sent to the Prophet Abraham, so why doesn’t Dr Nadwi teach this, plainly stated in the Quran, rather than his completely inaccurate and grossly confusing remarks on the prophets? Unless it is because salafis are fond, along with Philosophers and Sufis, of impugning enormities to the Prophets too – Sheikh Nadwi’s perennial favourite Ibn Taimia insisted on the ‘Satanic Verses’ incident for example.

Or has he not been informed of what was in the scriptures of Moses. And [of] Abraham, who fulfilled [his obligations] – That no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And that there is not for man except that [good] for which he strives. And that his effort is going to be seen -53; 35-40

Dr Nadwi Suddenly Embraces Philosophy (But Keeps Insulting Philosophers Anyway)

Having slandered the poor Greeks and even the Chinese, I was concerned that the more recent Western philosophers had escaped censure. No matter, Dr Nadwi has come choice comments about them too, but sadly, these are no better informed than his earlier asides at ‘philosophy’.

40.18: He says that ‘philosophers struggle to prove their own existence, as there is no proof for it’ [emphasis mine]. He then rubbishes Descartes (and Al Ghazzali, whose work Dr Nadwi, in a sad overreach of competence, deigns to teach) and refutes the statement ”I think there for I exist”. He says ‘this statement is incorrect because it is ”A is A because A is A” and that the correct statement is; ”I think that’s why God is there”.

This is Dr Nadwi’s alarming and embarrassing attempt at constructing a logical Syllogism or as it is known in Islam ‘mantiq

At 40.40, he astonishes both man and beast by claiming that there is no argument that proves you exist (let alone God or the universe).

Even the most die-hard Solipsist would be alarmed at this and needless to say, this bizarre ejaculation has no basis in Islam. Nor does Dr Nadwi make any attempt to legitimise it (for which we are thankful).

42.48 He says; ‘I am a small thinker, it proves there is a bigger thinker [he means God]’.

Here are his points again for those, understandably, too alarmed or confused to apprehend them the first time:

  1. Philosophers cannot ‘prove themselves’
  2. I think, therefore I exist’ is in fact wrong
  3. I think,  therefore God exists’ is the right formulation.

This, yet again, is the proof and result of Muslim scholar’s hostile and inconsistent usage of reason and ‘logic’ (or ‘mantiq’). Dr Nadwi’s role model and the man he is wont to promote at courses and seminars, the aforementioned Ibn Taimia, is well known for his voluminous (as in it is literally many volumes) ‘refutation’ of ‘Greek’ logic. Sheikh Nadwi goes one further and uses it in one of the most bizarre ways I can ever recall being committed to ‘YouTube’ (and anyone familiar with that outlet will no doubt be aware of the severe violations therein). It is unsurprising – arguments about whether logic should be taught on the syllabus raged at the very founding of Deoband, which is where Nadwi seems to have been educated. On the evidence of Sheikh Nadwi, it seems they decided to teach it after all, but badly.

First of all just see how easily Ibn Sina (the latin ‘Avicenna’) (detested by Nadwi and Salafis but a giant in the field of logic) proves his own existence – follow the text below in red: Just look at yourself! Do you get distracted from your existence? … Do you get headless about your own existence? Do you deny yourself? According to me, any brainy person doesn’t do that! Even the sleepy person, while dreaming and drunken person while he is drunk don’t get headless about their own existence!

But it seems Dr Nadwi follows teachings from strange sophistic Greek philosophers and Ibn Taimia, who believe in a humanoid god and deny everything and anything, including that you exist. Perhaps that’s what led Dr Nadwi to say he cannot prove his own existence.

As for his philosophic/logical, er, ‘formula’, ”I think that’s why I exist”, he formulated this as ”A is A because A is A

With respect, that is totally absurd.

The correct formula of what Descartes said is ”A is B, that’s why A is C”.

And that is a correct ‘analogy’. If Dr Nadwi had studied mantiq or logic then he would know that it is first type of ”Antijah” because it is; ”A is B, and every B is C, that is why A is C”.

That is considered the strongest type of ”Burhan” (proof) in logic.

There is no problem with Sheikh Nadwi being naïve of logic (indeed, proclaiming reason and logic to be forbidden and to be the same as inviting the punishment of God on your whole nation and race does predispose one to lack of competence in said subjects) but then what compels Dr Nadwi to continuously speak about issues he has no clue about?

As for his own novel fabrication of ”I think that’s why God exists” and the reason for that is that someone made me to do this act… regrettably, this is just as absurd, because God also acts, according to Dr Nadwi’s formulation; ”God acts, therefore some other God exists” because someone made him to act. In Islamic logical or mantiq terms, it is the fourth type of burhan but with incorrect ”Kubra”. 


Also, if Dr Nadwi believes that there is no proof that he exists, it is absurd to appeal to his own thinking (of which he is sceptical) as ‘proof’ of the existence of God. Or even to be thinking. You simply mustn’t say things like this, and especially not in this day and age when religion is ridiculed and under attack.

Sheikh Nadwi’s association with IERA is well known and it is sad that both he and they are fond of engaging in these kind of amateurish and embarrassing ‘philosophical’ comments, which go down well on the poor youth who have been handicapped by these individuals own teachings, which display open hostility towards logic and reason, but which they then wheel out to seduce these same youngsters by showing them that they have the ‘answers’ to the atheists and for the issues of God’s existence and such. Rather, Sheikh Nadwi’s comments are a Godsend to atheists, and crassly stated to boot.

What is sad is that Sheikh Nadwi and others from the Salafi movement have anathematised the genuine scientists, philosophers and logicians of Islam (and everyone else, with Dr Nadwi boldly asserting above that the Quran was withheld from the Greeks and Chinese as well as the Romans on account of their engagement with Philosophy) but then in an occult and underhand way, they appropriate their ideas to gain fame and legitimacy for themselves. However, their lack of even rudimentary competence is galling.

I have hardly studied any logic or mantiq, but I found Sheikh Nadwi’s comments buttock-clenchingly embarrassing. How much more so the more savvy members of the audience or God forbid, non-Muslim philosophers?

Having Vanquished the Philosophers, Dr Nadwi Turns His Attention to God

42.48 he says; ‘I am a small thinker  – it proves there is a bigger thinker’.

47.06 he says; ‘God is not arrogant’.

Here Dr Nadwi has in fact started to get engaged into the kinds of heretical issues that he was concerned that Jalal ad din Rumi was: again, I hate to point this out, but the fact that the laity is being accosted with ideas that could lead them to into disbelief forbids me from giving Dr Nadwi a pass as a dilettante in Islamic Theology – and that would be a generous assessment. Yet this is no way restricts him and numerous others from offering courses on these subjects. Let us immunise ourselves with these dreadful errors:

  1. God is ”A Bigger Thinker”.
  2. God is not arrogant

As for God ‘thinking’, this is considered kufr or ‘disbelief’ according to Maturidis and Ash’aris, the two orthodox schools of creed in Islam (for which Dr Nadwi has publicly stated that he, a Salafi, cares not). But Dr Nadwi as a follower of Ibn Taimia, who deviates from such orthodoxy in the most pronounced ways, is presumably coming at this from the anthropomorphist belief that humans are created in the image of God, so it is perhaps unsurprising that he would say that a human is small thinking animal, so God is big thinking animal. But this is completely inexcusable.

Having removed the obstacles of reason, intellect and Sufism, Dr Nadwi nakedly indoctrinates the uninitiated listeners into his own idiosyncratic and heterodox theology – but is too dishonest to do it with openness or consent, as scholarship and teaching mandate.

Concerning God not being ‘Arrogant’, he has also been utterly careless. In Surah Hashr; 23, God says that he is ”Mutakabbir”. This means…yes, you guessed it, ‘arrogant’. This is reiterated as well in many hadeeths (e.g of Bukhari): “Arrogance is my izar, so anyone tries to share it with me I destroy him and I don’t care!’’ 


Dr Nadwi has poor knowledge of attributes of God. This is sadly an extremely common affliction of Muslim scholars in the UK and elsewhere, who concern themselves only with their narrow sectarian interests and a preoccupation with hadith to the expense of virtually everything else. But Sheikh Nadwi’s degree of being ill informed is exceeded by his ambition: he has spoken on so many topics and with so little accuracy that it is simply unacceptable. And it begs the question; if he is willing to opine on philosophy, logic, theology and the fate of bygone nations without adequate background, what exactly is he specialised in, and why not stick to this?

Confusing Arabic

Again, this is another alarming attribute of those who purport to ‘teach’ Islam: I said before that their principle skill is very often only the ability to read Arabic, but in fact the degree to which their audience is unable to apprehend common errors in even said Arabic, means there is a total lack of quality control. One expects better of Sheikh Nadwi, but once again, his statements will leave the students grasping: 

52.23 he says; the Arabic word ”Mulk” cannot be translated by a single word. Further, he says; ”Mulk” means ”controlling” and ”possession” – so it is ‘ruler’, ‘owner’. He made two points;

  1. Mulk cannot be translated by a single word
  2. Mulk means ”ruling” and ”owning”

The correct thing is there are two different words, both have the same root letters; Meem, Lam, Kaf. But one is ‘Mulk’ and the second is ‘Milk’. Mulk means ‘kingdom’, so ‘Malik’, which means ‘king’, comes from this root. ‘Milk’ means ‘ownership’. So ‘Maalik’, which means ‘owner’, comes from this root.

From the ‘Mufradat’ of Raghib. Follow in red (if you want to);

You can say ”Malik” of people, but you cannot say ”Malik” of things. Some of the scholars said; ”Malik” is a name of anyone who is in charge/ruling…Thus, ”Milk” is more general than ”Mulk”…

So Dr Nadwi made two errors;

  1. He was unable to distinguish between two different words and thought that both are same therefore he included the meaning of both of them into one word which is ”Mulk”.
  2. He said that ”Mulk” is more perfect. It is exactly the other way according to the language and to the scholars. 

55.28 minutes he says; ”Fa’eel” form is for ‘permanent condition’.

Fa’eel” has several meanings (and not only the one which he mentioned which was ”permanent and continuous”):

  1. Having the condition in a high level, such as; Shareeb, Sameet.
  2. Has the meaning of ism Maf’ool with the meaning of ‘a short time period’, exactly the opposite to what Dr Nadwi stated.

‘Sajeen’ means jailed person and ‘Jareeh’ means injured person. Neither of them are permanent as Sheikh Nadwi said. So the Jareeh is very temporary.


Of course, anyone can make a mistake, but this degree of laxity in everything from facts to theology to even the Arabic language (in which Dr Nadwi has his PhD) is not becoming. Arabic is complex and I do not lightly highlight these errors as many could do the same to me. But in combination with the brash and poorly researched remarks which his introduction is littered with, I sadly see a stereotypical ‘Islamic course’, which is high in emotive posturing and sectarian indoctrination and astonishingly poor in information content and accuracy. Dr Nadwi is also, and I apologise for singling him out (but he is one of the most well-funded and well known), another exemplar of the woefully common tendency of scholars and teachers who don’t mind lecturing without double or fact -checking what they are going to teach. And I must be blunt; that proves that they don’t respect the students who entrust them with their Islamic education in good faith.

I hope the numerous examples within such a short talk serve to show the readers the dangers of channelling ones enthusiasm and finances into courses and lectures without being sufficiently critical and employing ones intellectual faculties. I think that the readers can also now see that virtually all of these errors, omissions and occasional slanders by Sheikh Nadwi did not in fact require any Islamic knowledge to apprehend. If one employs such examples, and is not ashamed of using ones God given gifts of intellection, one can be relatively, but never completely, protected from what has become a shamefully exploitative ‘Islamic courses’ industry in the UK and elsewhere.


131 thoughts on “Scholars Or Charlatans? Akram Nadwi is the Author of Confusion

    • By that I mean:

      He says ‘they want to put their understanding upon Quran’. Here he contradicts himself again. What are people who have come to this talk meant to think? First he says ‘think and understand’, then here he says don’t ‘put your own understanding’. So whose understanding am I supposed to take, and what manner of Orwellian doublespeak is this? He is in fact trying to say; ‘take the understanding of salaf as explained by our chosen scholars (in his case, Salafi archfiend Ibn Taimia, and he has done another lecture/course about taking only the principles of Ibn Taimia in understanding the Quran). So, his message is perhaps more plainly;

      It is clear that “their own understanding” means imposing one’s own biases/philosophies upon the Qur’an. So he is not really contradicting himself at all. Yeah his english is not great but it doesn’t seem he says what you think he is saying.

      • So what is ones ‘understanding’ if not your opinions and biases and philosophies? Anyways, I gave you plenty of examples.
        And so God denying the Greeks and the Chinese the Qur’an for practising philosophy is fine is it? No problems with that?
        And what is philosophy if not understanding and knowledge?
        Come on, please wake up. Such egregious errors and even racial condemnation and collective punishment and still you are making excuses.
        BTW, are the excuses only for Nadwi why not all of the people he condemned as well? Do Muslims make excuses for philosophers and Ibn Sina etc or just Nadwi and Co?

      • I think it’s not really accurate to say that greek philosophy is mere “understanding” “opinion” and “bias”. There is a difference between the simple thinking of the desert nomad and an Aristotelian philosopher. He’s simply saying that the absence of such a sophisticated system of thought (which is not really how the common person thinks) allowed them to see the Qur’an more clearly. You may not agree, but this vitriolic over-reading into his words is not fair and it makes you incorrect too. You have also said that this is racial condemnation, but his words did not have a racial motive at all…

      • “Think about what it” is not the same as a free license to give whatever meaning to clear Arabic language. You need to learn the basics of rhetoric because your whole garbage article is based on a strawman.

      • And the strawman is…?
        Please don’t keep us guessing! And where do I find this dictionary of ‘clear Arabic language’ please?

        I don’t understand you guys. It seems you post to feel like you took ‘action’. But wouldn’t it make you feel much better and help people more if you actually included some information or an argument in there?

        Someone non-Muslim told me once that most of Muslim apologetics is really bad because the people involved in it think that if you say something, anything, then you win. But they are not equipped to actually understand or process what has been said, to appraise or judge it. At the time, I berated him for being an Islamophobe, but as I’ve grown up, I can see he has a point.

      • Clearly me simply asking questions seems to really bother you. Can you calm down. Literally 90% of your post is just you calling me stupid. Moving on to the substance.

        “Do you think every single person in Roman Empire was a literate master philosopher? You or Nadwi ever study these issues? If God can’t explain these philosophical things then how did Greeks become so philosophical that they don’t deserve Qur’an anymore in the first place?
        Is it because Aristotle is a better teacher than God?
        So two options: if Qur’an can only be given to non philosophical people because they will need complicated explanation, then should have been given to Greeks as most people according to you are not philosophical.
        If most Greeks ARE philosophical then how come Greeks could teach whole nation something that God can’t?
        Choose one.
        Or third option: you and Nadwi are idiots who introduced this new thing into Islam that Qur’an is not for Philosophers and Romans but only illiterate child killing Mushriks.”

        When I was talking about greek philosophers i clearly pointed out that they were the best and the brightest. Read what I am about to say very carefully: Because they were in such a position, they would have presented logical arguments to the Prophet, which the Qur’an would have had to reply to. This would have necessitated the usage of philosophical arguments. Clearly, the average greek was not going to be able to grasp these arguments. So then the dialogue would be aimed at a small fraction of the population where outsiders to the philosophical tradition (most people) would not even be able to understand just because of the vocabulary.

        “On top of that you seem like you never even read Qur’an. You think it is full of ‘simple’ things. If you say so. But if it is so simple then why do your Salafi friends insist we need tafsir and hadith to understand it? And why did Nadwi say we needed understanding of Salaf and should stick to principles of Ibn Taimia to understand it?”

        I did not say that at all. The Qur’an uses simple arguments, this is a GOOD thing. The design argument is a simple argument, that does not make it an invalid one. It is present in the Qur’an. You can write whole books about it. What’s great about these arguments is that it allows for further philosophical reflection according to the ability of the reader, but what is there can be understood by most. The Qur’an’s arguments are rich but not obfuscated by philosophical language.

        “Simple enough for ‘95%’ and illiterate people to understand or we need tafsirs and hadith and principles to understand it? Also, how are you going to understand these hadith and tafsir books if you are illiterate like jahili Arabs you guys are praising so much?”

        For Qur’anic argumentation, I don’t think you need historical context present in hadith. Its all there in the text.

        “On top of all this dumbness, you are telling us that Nadwi knows that they were Christians. Is it like he knows about Roman philosophers, the ones that don’t exist? And the Chinese ‘philosophers’? Typical Salafi garbage – keep asking rubbish questions but don’t answer anything yourself.”

        I dunno, never studied Chinese and Byzantine education in the 7th century

        “And you didn’t answer: having philosophy is bigger obstacle to receiving Qur’an than being Mushriks and killing babies? Just keep posting nonsense without ever clarifying or answering isn’t it?”

        These two are unrelated issues. To summarize (for the third time), the Qur’an arguing with philosophers will lead to philosophical arguments in ayahs that would not have been understandable by the lay man. But if you have a mushrik killing a baby, the verse that tells them to stop killing babies is understandable by everyone.

      • This is getting ridiculous
        Either accept what mmmclmru has to say and leave it at that or continuing debating and never reaching any answers you so wish to seek.
        I’m pretty sure Islam asks you to explore more important issues such as your relationship with Allah (just an example) so preoccupy yourself with those matters rather than debating over the Qur’an and your ‘issues’ regarding as to which people it was revealed to. It’s trivial at the very least.

      • That’s because you ARE stupid.
        I wish I could dedicate 100% of the response to calling you stupid. It still wouldn’t do you justice.

        Your are just chatting rubbish and deluding yourself that you are intellectual and able to have a dialogue.

        In fact you are so galactically banal that you comment on things without reading them.

        You had your chance to have a dialogue and ‘learn’ as you claim but not only were you unable to respond to any of my points, you couldn’t even make any of your own. Just wasting mine and the poor readers time.

        I had to say everything 4 times and even Catholic Commentator tried to get it through to you but no avail.
        Nadwi: Quran not given to Greeks because of philosophy
        You: Good! Because everyone can understand that child murder is bad!


        And Nadwi never said Qur’an should not engage in philosophical arguments. He just said Greeks didn’t get it because of Philosophy. Yet most Greeks were not philosophers so…? Oh I forgot: YOU DIDN’T WATCH IT!

        You total plonker!

        Just go away and stop wasting our time with your garbage Salafi apologetics. When you reach some kind of level to have a dialogue then come back. Or better don’t. Keep studying from Nadwi. You two are an excellent fit for each other.

    • Not related to the topic, but I am interested in your view. Do you ever feel that philosophizing has led some Muslim theologians to some un-Qur’anic doctrines? For example (if al-ghazali’s view is representative) Ash’ari thoughts on morality and God. They “solve” the problem of evil by just saying that morality is inapplicable to God, that does not seem to coincide with the moral nature of God in the Qur’an. Wouldn’t it be better in that case to simply try accept the text rather than follow pure reason? I am not saying that philosophy is bad per se, but it can lead to some strange conclusions that become enshrined in orthodoxy.

      • Yeah, you see, this is why philosophy is good – how do you know what’s relavent without reading or watching the whole thing?
        I went to a lot of trouble to watch and analyse and reference. Then I wrote 15 pages or so. But you are here to ‘learn’ but don’t want to actually watch or read. How does it look?

        Even then I don’t mind, but you raised this utterly silly point: use your brain for God’s sake: So Qur’an wasn’t revealed to Greeks because they had ‘preconceptions’? Is that what he’s saying? Think.
        So is it better to be polytheists and child killers like jahili Arabs?
        Isn’t polytheism a ‘preconception’? Does being illiterate make you a ‘blank slate’?
        So whatever you and Nadwi are talking about is unadulterated nonsense since if God shouldn’t reveal Qur’an to Chinese and Greeks for having ‘philosophy’ how come he gave it to child killing polytheist jahili Arabs?
        Wake up.
        Yet we didn’t even discuss what God meant by ‘knowledge’ being needed to understand Qur’an. What does God mean by ‘knowledge’?
        Is it not being able to read and burying your daughter alive?
        On top of that, Greeks at the time of Qur’an were not ‘philosophers’ but CHRISTIANS. Nadwi doesn’t even know that. Christians also don’t deserve guidance is it?
        Romans at that time were Catholics and anyway when were the Romans EVER ‘Philosophers’? Who is the Roman Aristotle. So just give Nadwi Carte Blanche to talk crap why don’t you. I already mentioned all of that and also the Chinese ‘philosophers’ in the article.

      • Basically according to your logic: polytheism and jahilism and killing kids = better than philosophy so thus they ‘deserve’ Quran.
        Salafi thinking.

      • I think you’re misunderstanding my position. I did not say that philosophy was bad. I said that sending the Qur’an to a culture with an advanced philosophical tradition may be a bad idea (basically agreeing with the shaykh). Think about this. The Qur’an engages in argumentation with its opponents. It argues with them in a way that it would strike their opponents effectively. For example, appealing to creation in nature (plants growing etc) to show that God has the power to raise the dead. This argument is understandable by everyone.

      • You think following the text doesn’t lead to strange conclusions?
        Did you read the Qur’an?
        Try taking it all literally and then see what happens.

      • Sorry, last reply got cut off

        I think you’re misunderstanding my position. I did not say that philosophy was bad. I said that sending the Qur’an to a culture with an advanced philosophical tradition may be a bad idea (basically agreeing with the shaykh). Think about this. The Qur’an engages in argumentation with its opponents. It argues with them in a way that it would strike their opponents effectively. For example, appealing to creation in nature (plants growing etc) to show that God has the power to raise the dead. This argument is understandable by everyone.

        Now imagine that the Qur’an was sent to the greeks, with their active philosophical tradition, where philosophers would have been the brightest of the population. Naturally the Qur’an would have to engage with them. This would mean the argumentation in the Qur’an would have been reply to complex philosophical arguments rather than just appealing to the common-sense of the average man. In other words, that means the Qur’an would have to also reply in philosophical arguments and language in order to not be beaten by greek philosophers. The ayahs in the Qur’an would thus speak in length about substances, modes, etc ,etc and all this stuff that honestly cannot be understood by maybe 95% of the population. The Qur’an then becomes *inaccessible*, and many don’t have the philosophical mind to get their head around the arguments fully! Ofcourse, you could say, now then, people can go and learn philosophy just like nowadays people have to learn the arabic language to understand the Qur’an, but learning arabic is not like learning philosophy. Languages are easier to grasp, naturally just requiring a lot of memorization and basic grammar, while a lot of people just can’t get their heads around philosophy. I find philosophy very interesting and useful, but some I know just can’t get their heads around it.

        So it is clear why a greek philosophical Qur’an may be a bad idea. I would rather prefer a Qur’an that argues over common-sense assumptions of your average man, and then allow us to contemplate on it further philosophically if we are inclined to it.

        Note: When I say philosophy I don’t mean critical thinking in general but a very specific methodology ie. kalaam and the likes.

      • Kid, you ain’t got a position nor a point to understand.

        I tried to explain but you are just a waffler. You annoyed me with your egregious nonsense. My usual policy is to simply ban people who comment without watching/reading. I should have applied it. But because you made a drama about ‘wanting to learn’ I wasted my time. Sheesh.

        Please go and join Nadwi and people like that and don’t waste our time with your pseudo intellectual rubbish.
        Your position is that of a foolish partisan who will keep making excuses for his favourite scholars no matter how absurd his points. This is why people get put off religion.
        On top of that you were talking rubbish about Asharis but unable to answer what I said and unwilling to state your own position. But we can all see what your position is.

        You insist on being foolish plus you impugned God and Qur’an and harm the readers with your foolish statements so I’m sorry, but you need a harsh reply:

        Kiddo, you think God is only capable of explaining things to uneducated people? Is it too hard for God to explain to Aristotle and normal people at the same time? Is Plato ‘smarter’ than God then?
        Do you think every single person in Roman Empire was a literate master philosopher? You or Nadwi ever study these issues? So just stop talking nonsense about things you don’t know.
        If God can’t explain these philosophical things then how did Greeks become so philosophical that they don’t deserve Qur’an anymore in the first place?
        Is it because Aristotle is a better teacher than God?
        So two options: if Qur’an can only be given to non philosophical people because they will need complicated explanation, then should have been given to Greeks as most people according to you are not philosophical.
        If most Greeks ARE philosophical then how come Greeks could teach whole nation something that God can’t?
        Choose one.
        Or third option: you and Nadwi are idiots who introduced this new thing into Islam that Qur’an is not for Philosophers and Romans but only illiterate child killing Mushriks.

        Basically you just proved what atheists say that religious books are for people who are illiterate or don’t know anything.

        Well done.

        On top of that you seem like you never even read Qur’an. You think it is full of ‘simple’ things. If you say so. But if it is so simple then why do your Salafi friends insist we need tafsir and hadith to understand it? And why did Nadwi say we needed understanding of Salaf and should stick to principles of Ibn Taimia to understand it?

        Which is it then?

        Simple enough for ‘95%’ and illiterate people to understand or we need tafsirs and hadith and principles to understand it? Also, how are you going to understand these hadith and tafsir books if you are illiterate like jahili Arabs you guys are praising so much?

        Or option three again, you and Nadwi are stupid and God sent a guidance and a favour that can guide educated and uneducated, Greek, Chinese or Martian people because he is God and he is the best of those who teach.

        Look, I know you feel bad that Qur’an is not aimed at silly people like you and Nadwi.

        But tough.

        God said explicitly you need knowledge and aql to understand Qur’an. Sad for you two but that’s life.

        So if anything, Quran is not for people like you guys who make up obstacles and principles to get in between it and the people.

        That is funny if you think about it.

        And also: we today are definitely not jahili Arabs and have an even richer ‘philosophical tradition’, as well as science, than Greeks. So according to your ‘logic’ Qur’an is DEFINITELY not for us then.

        So God messed up. He didn’t realise that there would be literate and scientific people in the future (even though they were there in Prophets time and before too). Let’s all apostate. The End.

        Seriously, why don’t you and Nadwi go and work for the militant atheists? You can help them a lot.

        Also, how is it Greek citizens fault that they had a philosophical tradition? So they don’t deserve Quranic guidance because of where they are born or who their ancestors are?
        It’s like Original Sin but worse then?
        Poor Greeks and Romans get no guidance from God because Aristotle did philosophy.

        And yet neither you nor Nadwi proved that philosophy is bad in the first place.

        Like your idol Nadwi you also invented a brand new principle that Qur’an is aimed at people who don’t have philosophy and are ‘simple’ like ‘95%’ of people. But God forgot to mention that in Qur’an and left it to you to work out is it? When he says to use intellect in 100 plus places he messed up isn’t it?

        And why are you assuming that 95% of people are unable to understand like you and Nadwi? This is exactly like Salafis believing in the Bedouins version of Islam.
        But God forgot to say in Qur’an ‘Hey guys, this book is for simple people who are 95% and don’t have philosophy or knowledge. That’s why I didn’t give it to Greeks! Also, polytheism is not knowledge!’

        BTW, how come God accused them people of following their fathers who were ignorant in the Quran if they had no knowledge and were blank slates? Did he mean Greeks again?

        Like I said, did you ever read Qur’an or is it just like this, commenting without reading?

        Definitely the latter.

        On top of all this dumbness, you are telling us that Nadwi knows that they were Christians. Is it like he knows about Roman philosophers, the ones that don’t exist? And the Chinese ‘philosophers’? Typical Salafi garbage – keep asking rubbish questions but don’t answer anything yourself.
        Typical way of Salafis to destroy the religion. We saw a good example here.
        So you and Nadwi know which parts of Aristotle the Catholics of 7th Century accepted do you? Since they had that ‘rich tradition’?

        And you didn’t answer: having philosophy is bigger obstacle to receiving Qur’an than being Mushriks and killing babies? Just keep posting nonsense without ever clarifying or answering isn’t it?

        And God refusing to guide people based on their ancestors.
        And God never saying that philosophy is bad in the first place. No answers

        Just excellent logic.

        Like I said, just offer these statements to atheists and enemies of religion and they will take them gratefully.

      • Also, Arabic language being easy and anyone can learn it and Philosophy being hard: where did you get this from?

        Just another principle you made up isn’t it? Of course you love Nadwi – you are even worse than him for making up baseless nonsense and then trying to say that is Islam.

        Arabic – if it is so easy, how come Nadwi made so many mistakes then?
        Oh, I forgot, you didn’t watch/read it!

        Just commenting to confuse people isn’t it?

        In reality, different people find different things easy. Science is easy for Ibn Sina but hard for Mozart. Piano is easy for Mozart but hard for me etc.

        Obviously philosophy is impossible for you and Nadwi.

        But then don’t try and make it that whatever you hate, God hates also, and doesn’t guide the people who practice it etc.

        Where did God say that?

        Have some shame before inventing principles on behalf of God.

        I hate dumb Salafi apologists and footballers. But I don’t make up stories that Qur’an is not for them.

      • But I am very grateful to you: the author said that Salafis just lie and make up principles to say whatever THEY don’t like is haraam, bad, God hates it etc.

        So you proved his point: Qur’an ITSELF said why it wasn’t given to Greeks, said why it was given to Jahilis and said knowledge and aql is glorious.
        All of that is in the Qur’an and his article.

        You read neither of them I think.

        But you ignored all of that and gave us your theories about linguistics and philosophy, all of which is nonsense and against Qur’an.

        So you proved his point just BEAUTIFULLY.

        But if modernists just make up principles like you guys and ignore Qur’an then they a kaafir according to you people.


      • Also, for your comment here (only quoting the first line):

        “Yeah, you see, this is why philosophy is good – how do you know what’s relavent without reading or watching the whole thing? ..

        Maybe you are trying to misunderstand his / my points? Do you not think he knows doesn’t know this:

        “On top of that, Greeks at the time of Qur’an were not ‘philosophers’ but CHRISTIANS.”

        Obviously… Just like how the average greek before christianity was a pagan. But they had philosophers in their midst, and a rich philosophical tradition, and that has to be accounted for.

  1. just lately I read a salafi quoting Akram Nadwi as stating that Islam respects women, except that “Greek philosophy inspired” scholars twisted Islam interpretation to belittle women because that’s what the Greeks did (??????!!!)

    this is so messed up, but it’s very common and I know a lot of salafis are very hostile to Rumi, to the point stating may he roasted in jahannam & slandered him as homosexual or immoral while citing from kuffar orientalists’ work that bashed him as a ”proof”.

    Jalaluddin Rumi is a Hanafi Maturidi scholar, a headmaster of madrassa his whole life, his father was direct disciple of Fakhruddin Ar-Razi. Though I’d honestly & seriously being critical to Rumi’s ability in hadith, based on his writings, only ignorant dishonest haters will bash “Maznavi” as kufr (without actually reading it ofc). I have read Maznavi from A to Z, it’s actually a collection of stories — be it from Quran, Hadiths, Sahabas, saliheen, awliya, or folk stories and parables — wise stories to teach you some wisdom and ma’rifa.
    but what can you expect from simpleton literalists to understand the depth of philosophy or mysticism — i.e. the ones who interpret “east or west, there is face of God” as ”oh God has a face”. you can’t expect a bedouin to run a spaceship.

    the only thing I can respect from Nadwi is the fact he wrote Al Muhaddithat, biography of around 7000 female hadith scholars. while emphasizing that women of that era were active & influential in public sphere, from scholars to judges and entrepreneurs. (give credit when credit is due)

    • The Literalist approach is something most Muslims take nowadays. This certainly makes us also prone to the dangers of extremism.
      Just how have we reached this point?

    • Sorry, you can’t give him credit for that book.
      It doesn’t exist nor was ever published. Just an ‘intro’
      Scholars often just ‘cut and paste’ from books of biographies and then claim to have ‘written’ a book but Nadwi didn’t even do that.
      There are no great female hadith scholars. You already know that since none of the famous hadith scholars are women.
      Also, Rumi being weak in hadith: who says? Muhaditheen or Hanafis?
      According to Muhaditheen everyone but them is ‘weak’.

    • BTW, women not being famous hadith scholars is bad only for Salafis.
      Why should women care about that.
      Just ask Nadwi: please show us any hadith collection by even one of these 70,000 female hadith scholars.
      Female Islamic scholars were not stupid and charlatans like Nadwi

  2. @Taha

    “There is a difference between the simple thinking of the desert nomad and an Aristotelian philosopher.”

    Rather insulting for desert nomads, I find … You speak like a neo-colonialist white supremacist.
    I think you’re perpetually confusing how people were just before Islam came and how people were just after.
    You should concentrate on the wonderful state they were in just after, rather than whatever sorry state they were just before.
    People like you always seem to long for a return to Jahiliah.

    “Wouldn’t it be better in that case to simply try accept the text rather than follow pure reason?”

    Acceptance against reason is hyprocritical, extremist and unnatural (and condemned both in Christianity and Islam). And what is “pure” reason ? You seem to prefer “impure” reason, reason mixed with uncontrolled emotion perhaps ?

    • Here we go again. I am not talking about their aptitude over “common reasoning” as all men do. I think all men have that same ability. But the greeks had their philosophical tradition (which is different from an average person’s “thinking” – otherwise everyone would just “know” philosophy) which led them to conclusions that may have contradicted the Qur’an. Some ash’ari theology does not seem to sit well with anyone who wants to just accept what the Qur’an says. I am not saying that philosophy is bad, it can be used to reach conclusions already present in revelation

      • If you are that much interested in philosophy and Islamic theology, I recommend you read the works of Majid Fakhry and the like to gain a clearer understanding of the issues. It’s always best to have a sound understanding of a topic (especially theology) before delving into it on an online comments section.

        Peace be upon you.

      • You know, the world is full of people who claim they want to accept Qur’an literally and not impose their understanding, that they got confused by Asharis and nonsense like that.
        But I never met anyone who takes Qur’an literally.
        Qur’an says Allah forgets (like humans), has a soul and and breathes.
        Do you accept it?
        If they are ‘mysteries’ like his ‘hand’ and ‘foot’ and shin and we should accept without asking, then Trinity is also a ‘mystery’.
        Do you accept it without asking then?

      • Well that’s not really my point. Do you believe that, like the Ash’aris, if God were to send righteous believing people to hell for eternal and excruciating torture, that would be just?

      • The Ash’ari and the Maturidi Schools

        By Nuh Keller

        The tenets of faith of Ahl Al Sunna orthodoxy are given here in the same order as they appear in traditional Ash’ari references such as the Matn al-Sanusiyya and others. For more than a thousand years, such works have been learned at an early age by virtually all Maliki and Shafi’I scholars, by many Hanafis, particularly in the Near East, and by some Hanbalis – all of whom were taught that attainment of this knowledge was personally obligatory upon every Muslim, and who knew it simply as Islam, not Ash’arism.

        The Maturidis mostly followed the Hanafi school of law and predominated in the lands beyond the Oxus in central Asia. Their tenets have not been given a separate treatment because according to Imam Taj al-Din al-Subki, they do not differ from the Ash’aris except on six questions, which excluding merely verbal differences are;

        (1) Ash’aris believe that if God willed He could in principle punish the obedient and reward the disobedient, since He is free do anything, however He has promised though revelation to reward the obedient and punish the disobedient; while the Maturidis believe that he must in principles reward the obedient and punish the disobedient, and that His doing the opposite is absurd;
        (2) Ash’aris believe that man is responsible to believe in God because of revelation, not merely because he is endowed with human reason, and that he has no responsibility prior to revelation, while Maturidis believe that man is responsible to believe in God even before revelation, by the mere fact of having reason;
        (3) Ash’aris believe that divine attributes of agency such as creation, giviging life, giving death, resurrection the dead and so forth, are temporal; while the Maturidis believe they all are manifestations of a single beginnglessly eternal attribute termed “existentiation” (takwin);
        (4) Ash’aris believe that God’s own beginninglessly eternal speech may be heard, while the Maturidis believe it may not;
        (5) Most Ash’aris believe that in principle God may impose moral obligations that man cannot endure, while Maturidies believe this impossible; though both agree that in practice He never does;
        (6) Ash’aris hold two views about the possibility of prophets committing lesser sins that are not sordid: the first being that they are possiblie for them to absentmindedly commit, while the second it that they are not. The Maturidis say this is impossible, and that they are divinely protected from both enormities and lesser sins, a position that Taj al-Subki concurs with (Tabaqat al Shafi’iyya al kubra, 3.386-388)

      • Thanks for the quotes, but they don’t actually touch on what I was asking. Could you please tell me if al-ghazali’s position is indicatory of mainstream Ash’arism? I am told it is, but I don’t know. Here is what al-Ghazali said:

        So basically because we are God’s property (no objection here) it is not unjust for Him to inflict evil on us without due compensation or justification.

      • Well I’m not an Ash‘ari (Maturidi is my Creed) and the topic you’re delving into is very advanced. The answer you seek lies with another source.

  3. Recommended reading: Risala Al Qushayri

    This monumental work by Imam Al Qushayri (986-1074) is something I think that every Muslim should read. It’s practically an encyclopaedia of Sufism; biographies of the great saints + explanations of the Sufi path without any controversy. No doubt, this work defended Sufism whilst influencing Al Ghazali in the following century to popularise it on a mass scale.
    Salafis really don’t want people to read this at all for whatever sectarian reason. I can assure you this though: No perennialism in this work!

    • The book “Sufism for non-sufis” by Sherman Jackson based on Ibn Ata’illah is also recommended.

      @Taha : Yes I have read that Ash’ari view, saying basically God cannot be unjust because He is alone in universal supremacy therefore has no judge. “He will not be asked of what He does, but they will be asked” (Quran). (but just in case I’m mistaken, I’m open to correction!)

  4. I’m not aware of that but the Muhaddithat was quite a buzz several years ago & it is said to be several volumes of encyclopaedia series by Nadwi. Not just an ”intro book” but yes I’ve read the intro book. LOL I’m not aware the encyclopaedia actually exists or not.

    Female hadith narrators & scholars existed. As Suyuti and Ibn Hajar was recorded to have quarter of their teachers, females, around 70 if I recall correctly. They’re just not ”famous”. Not every great scholars should be famous. During collonial era, female scholarship & their history are suppressed. We don’t live in that era so we can’t conclude ”greatness” with being famous.

    As for Rumi, I only conclude that from directly reading his works. Read Fihi ma Fihi & it’s filled with many strange scary hadiths, I can’t get around my head if Rasulullah or sahaba had actually done or said that.
    (On unrelated note, Rumi’s indirect teacher, Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi is actually muhaddith but of course this fact was hidden by sectarian scholars :P)

    • What’s more concerning is that coming out of the Colonial era, is the Islamic civilisation in a permanent decline? We’re not producing scientists, architects, artists etc. Even traditional fields such as poetry and literature are dying out. There’s that severe mistrust between Muslims and the West that inhibits any cooperation in the long term. Sad to say but women’s role in Islam has been eradicated from an academic point of view. It’s highly unlikely we will get females becoming masters in any Islamic science for the foreseeable future.

    • So where is the famous collection by female hadith scholars and the female version of Abu Dawood, Zuhri, Imam Muslim and Bukhari?

      Are they hiding? And why did colonial powers suppress the female hadith scholars only? Is there any special reason for that?

      You are mistaking the hadith NARRATORS with hadith SCHOLARS.

      It is just feminism isn’t it? Whatever men do women have to do also. Why can’t the female scholars have their own specialist subjects and own specific contribution? Do you know what some of the great hadith scholars said about women? You wouldn’t be so proud to have women numbered amongst them if you did.

      I don’t know about your country, but here, Muslim women are very naive. Salafi Scholars do a lot of talks about ‘women’ and the girls easily get excited. That’s why they do these talks. To attract female audience and to make money. Go and study what fatwas Nadwi and Salafis have about women and their rights before you fall for it.

      Writing a book about female hadith ‘scholars’ and then narrating all those hadith and fatwas from Ibn Taimia about women have no choice in marriage or sex etc. You think that’s honoring women?

      It is just a way to make women attracted to the Salafi way. If you want to find out the Salafis ‘women’s rights’ in action, try going to live in their countries or even better under DAESH and see how much rights and honours they give.

      Job of women is not to be gullible when men start telling stories.
      Even the Non-Muslim guys will tell the girls they are ‘feminist’ to attract them. But unlike Salafis, at least it’s kind of true in the case of many English guys.

      • Harsh responses but very true answers

        It has to be said that Muslim women (not all of them of course) are really confused and so gullible to anyone propagating whatever version of Islam. Just look at those young girls going to the Middle East just to marry a terrorising, genocidal maniac after undergoing brainwashing. Hardly romantic is it? But then again, these women aren’t allowed to interact with decent, honest living men back home because Scholar X said so and we have to do follow him (never a her) no matter what.

        Aside from that, there are many female NARRATORS in Hadith but very few female SCHOALRS in our history. By including women, Islamic organisations gain that type of legitimacy to represent Islam that they so often seek = Support, money, authority etc.
        People are told the opposite of this so they feel that Muslims aren’t so oppressive or backwards as Atheists and the like make it out to be. However, they aren’t presented with the facts but just basically do Taqleed without doing any checks. And this is why Liberals and Feminists can also easily attract women just as the Salafis can do.
        You know, when each side talks about women’s ‘rights’…

        Muslim women, with the way its going, are never going to excel in any Islamic field. The segregation, below par education (education in Islam was much better in the 16th century than it is now – what a shame) and the weird fatwas that scholars use e.g. FGM to somehow seem to be adhering to the ‘correct’ Islamic way (and ignore everyone else)

      • Excellent points.
        Well put. It SHOULD be expanded to an article.

        And BTW Hermes, all of Muhaditheen say that FGM is WAAJIB. Including all the Shafi, Hanbali and Maliki female ones, = most of them.

        Are you still proud of them then?

    • I’m not saying all of this applies to your BTW, but Salafis classes are full of girls who get attracted to them by this kind of crap.

      Then they get brainwashed and exploited. Just look at IERA and Hamza Tzortzis – who is a ‘student’ of Nadwi. Please go and see how they are ‘honoring’ women with misyar etc and you will see why v they do these types of talks and books.

      • you said: “And BTW Hermes, all of Muhaditheen say that FGM is WAAJIB. Including all the Shafi, Hanbali and Maliki female ones, = most of them.”

        Why are your feelings hur by “FGM”, but not by male circumcision?

      • Are you on PCP dude? When did you see me talk about my feelings.

        Did you miss that day in school where they tell you about the man bits and the female bits? So is chopping off a woman’s clitoris the same as removing a foreskin? WTF?!

        Male circumcision isn’t compulsory in Islam EITHER but that was just a dumb comment. Please go and study about the anatomy, nerve supply and sexual function of the foreskin and clitoris.

        Or just ask a girl.

      • ”FGM” does not necessarily consist of cutting the the clitoris off. There are several stages. Forget about that.

        Also, you didn’t substantiate your interpretation of the story of Gog and Magog by referencing any classical scholars. You’re quick to cite classical sources to refute Wahabis, but you don’t want to do the same with non-Muslims attacking Islam.

      • About what you idiot?

        You don’t have to reply back about FGM and by the way, all of the ones the Salafis like you recommend involve the Clitoris – just see what Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Baz etc said about it. We did a full article about that here, but I have to reply back to your crap?

        So you lied about FGM and now want to ‘forget about it?’

        Male circumcision is as bad as female you claim. Prove it. You woman mutilating sack of crap. Let’s see someone chop off ‘just’ the tip of your penis and then see how you like it. You probably don’t have one on the evidence here though.

        Whose talking about Gog and Magog? Are you mad?

        I already gave you enough advice on that when you emailed me like a mental person but you are just a confused and if I may say, astonishingly dense person, and simply didn’t understand it.

      • And you did this before: do you think that people don’t have anything better to do than reply to your garbage?

        I took the trouble of emailing you answers despite the fact that I could see that you were clearly a troubled individual.

        Check your tone kiddo: don’t even dream that you are in a position to dialogue with me or anyone else who isn’t mental. Post crap here again and I will shame you by posting your emails and shaming you.

      • I am not trying to have a dialogue, I just want classical sources that agree with what you’re saying about Gog and Magog.

        I don’t give a damn about FGM (but you’re right, I was wrong about it, I thought wahabis were against cutting the clitoris). FGM or not doesn’t make Islam untrue.

        mmmclmru, you should be an actor in an Indian drama because you’re such a drama queen

      • So you admit you are a moron? That’s good.

        You clearly watch a lot of that Indian drama shite and its probably your main education. Now get lost you cyber stalking prat. I wrote plenty to you about Gog and Magog and you understood NOTHING, so you had your chance. Just to show you how dumb you are: how would the scholars who said Gog and Magog were the Mongols be classical you idiot? Do you know when the Mongols came? Was it in the ‘classical’ period? Fool.

        And since you are asking about Gog and Magog here, which has nothing to do with it, do you want me to publish your emails so that the readers can see how dumb you are and have a context for the discussion?

      • I admit I made a mistake about the FGM thing. That’s it, stop making a drama out of it by calling me a moron… where is your akhlaq?

        Forget about the classical or non-classical thing, those are just words. I don’t want to play games by crying about words. What I asked is simple: what did the early scholars thought about these verses. Did they understand them in the same manner Salafis do today? Or do they have the same understanding you have.

        If you want to give some context, it would be very beneficial if you made a separate article on this by publishing my emails (and correcting the mistakes I made because I was not concentrated). Or, you can post the video made by the guy and refute it.

        It would be better to defend the Qur’an against claims that it is not the word of God than to defend it against Muslims who misunderstands it (the latter is an issue but the former is WORST)

      • Yeah, I defended it but you didn’t understand. That’s your problem. Go ask the Salafis whose Quran translations and hadith methodology you insisted on when I answered. I don’t defend stuff I don’t agree with.

        When someone else has a problems with Gog and Magog, I can answer them. I neither post nor refute self evidently garbage videos like that. I posted plenty about how following Salafi methodology and hadith teachings will lead to doubts and problems. You want to insist on following it and then want me to explain it. That’s stupid. I showed you what Quran said about Gog and Magog. You insisted ‘but what about ahad hadith, what about scholars, CERTAIN tafsirs (again, Salafis favourite Tafseer Ibn Kathir etc)’. So you have the same methodology as Islamphobes and Salafis: can’t find what you want in the Quran so just ‘falsify’ Quran with hadith, tafseer etc. I don’t have that opinion or that problem.

      • ”CERTAIN tafsirs (again, Salafis favourite Tafseer Ibn Kathir etc)”

        ”So you have the same methodology as Islamphobes and Salafis”

        You misunderstood me. I am asking for references in NON-SALAFI sources. In sources written by scholars who adhere to the Hanafi mustalah of hadith.

      • Yeah and I’m ignoring you as per your failure to understand or respond to any of my points in my email, which I explained to you at length. Now feel free to get lost or reply back properly and systematically to my points. This ain’t a game where you make demands but don’t have to do anything and I’m on trial kiddo.

    • I’m not saying all of this applies to your BTW, but Salafis classes are full of girls who get attracted to them by this kind of crap.

      Then they get brainwashed and exploited. Just look at IERA and Hamza Tzortzis – who is a ‘student’ of Nadwi. Please go and see how they are ‘honoring’ women with misyar etc and you will see why they do these types of talks and books.

      • With all this being said, maybe an article needs to be written regarding this matter. It would certainly be much needed.

        Salafis want women for their own ends
        Feminists want women for their own ends

        Where exactly do we go from here? Seems like a battle for the hearts and minds of women. And one that is being lost each passing day…

  5. In defence of Muslim women, let me add something that I have noticed over and over again. Whenever I encounter a new Muslim site run and owned by a Muslim man, 99% of the time it will be the usual (mostly Christianophobic) garbage making you wonder if the site is real or just a fake created by professional Islamophobes.
    But if it’s owned by a Muslim woman (it’s usually a small personal blog), 99% of the time it will be a heartfelt, moving piece that will leave you thinking favorably of Islam and Muslims.
    A few years ago, through a marriage bureau I met a Muslim woman from Algeria. When she told me she was a practicing Muslim, I asked her why she didn’t a use a Muslim dating service, she answered that she didn’t want a Muslim partner, that Muslim men were too stupid and rude!

  6. @bediuzzamansaidnursi123

    Perhaps Salafis and feminists will unite ?
    They agree on many things – for example, on making a normal heterosexual life impossible for common people.

    According to Sheikh Imran Hosein, there’s a certain hadith that has Nabi Muhammad predicting a time when “the she-slave will give birth to her mistress”, meaning that the elite will use sex only for pleasure, leaving the drudgery of child-bearing to the slaves.

    • Thank you for your reply

      Regardless of whatever Salafis or Feminists are sprouting out these days, ultimately it’s the normal Muslims who suffer at the end of the day. But that’s the issue: If you’re not willing to think, prepare to become a slave. People are turning into Islam into something that it isn’t and that is the surest pathway to chaos. Muslims aren’t even taught what love is, never mind being romantic. By the teenage years, the problems become evident. In comes the extremist thinking. You get the point.

      As regards to that Hadith you mentioned, there are many interpretations to it. The one interpretation I’m always hearing is that it will be mother’s who will give birth to children who will then grow up and treat them like slaves. Are we not going down that path today???

      Also, its nice to interact with an honest Christian who shows no bias towards Islam.

  7. Personally, I think abortion is far worse because the victim is completely innocent.
    I cannot think of a situation where parents “treated like slaves by their children” didn’t do a lot to deserve it. Usually it’s the extreme liberal-permissive type of parent.
    I know of rather unpleasant and not very intelligent parents, but who at least know how to ensure respect from their children.

    That reminds me of yet another hadith, where (already in the Prophet’s time!) some companion of Nabi Muhammad remarked how some children were really nasty to their parents, to which the Prophet answered that Allah was punishing the parents in this world.

    • Interesting points

      In the liberal world children now grow up in, they’re encouraged to be individuals and their egos allowed to go wild without any restriction. Parents are totally unprepared for this (especially immigrant families)
      Hence why that interpretation of the Hadith is seen as the preeminent understanding.

      It’s also important to note that Al Ghazali realised that a child growing up naturally bothers satisfying only itself and never others. Therefore, a child should be ingrained with etiquette, manners etc. to turn onself into a well rounded individual for his/her benefit as well general society. A bit of Sufi psychology there.

  8. @Taha

    “Read what I am about to say very carefully”

    Hmm … you cannot be bothered to read the texts you are talking about (Qur’an, this blog article) and yet demand our utmost attention. Aren’t you over-rating yourself a little bit ?

  9. It seems to me that Taha thinks Allah doesn’t reveal scripture to lands endowed with philosophers because it’s impossible to address deep philosophical considerations without getting commoners confused.

    Seriously? Allah is Allah, you know? And Allah revealed the Qur’an, didn’t He? Methinks it’s worth a read through a philosophical lens. 😛

    • He’s just a time wasting waffler. It is what happens when you send Salafis to Western University. You get the worst of both.

      • Lol

        What was just supposed to be a conversation became you being enraged over a disagreement.

        Heres a tip: if you pride yourself in critical thinking then actually try to address the points of your critics rather that calling them stupid and talking over them. As yet i have not seen why I am wrong (no doubt you will reply with “thats because youre stupid” or some incredulity like “are you saying that arabs deserved the quran more” which is a strawman).

        I dont even know/care about the specifics of salafism, i have clearly stated that i like and find philosophy useful (for some reason everyone here thinks they know what I believe about philisophy better than I do), I am just using common sense to tell you that the quran should appeal to both the philosopher and the layman, which you disagree with for no apparent reason.

        But please keep doing what you are doing, verbally vomiting on 99% of muslim scholars for no reason except that you disagree with them

      • Uhhhh…Didn’t you make a big drama about how you were ‘out’? So why are you back.

        Basically, you are just doing what all people who are dumb but want to appear clever do: not able to respond to any of the points but claiming that in fact YOU were not responded to. Fortunately, people can read (which according to you and your favourite scholar makes them unworthy to be Muslims. WTH?!).

        Yeah. You don’t care about Salafis. That’s why you’re going to ALL this trouble to defend them. But unfortunately, you aren’t even on a level to dialogue. You just keep spamming the same rubbish. I mean, after being humiliated soooooooo many times about commenting WITHOUT WATCHING OR READING THE ARTICLES…you still didn’t read it or watch it. Being shameless is actually a requirement for ‘intellectual’ Muslims. We saw that with Nadwi. Look, you aren’t intelligent or well informed enough to get involved in this at all. Everyone saw that except you. Of course if you accepted that then you would realise that you are really really stupid, so I get it. It’s gentler on the ego to keep running around in circles and posting after making a big song and dance about how you are leaving. Sadly, people like you are an excellent argument against free higher education. Basically, universities are full of people who should not be there.

        I know someone gave you a place in uni and now you think you are smart. I’ll let you in on a secret: you aren’t. They just want people’s fees dude. I’m guessing you are in humanities. Full of dense people sadly.

      • Oh, and I told you that you were banned for wasting time, not addressing the points and not even watching the video already.
        Are you trying not to be able to read to be more deserving of the Qur’an is it?

      • LOL bro the discussion does not even pertain to what you wrote in the article. I know, I read it! Ok man im out. Just take a breather and chill out for a second. You are not actually responding to what I wrote! LOL whatever I am actually out. No drama pls

  10. @bediuzzamansaidnursi123

    I think Shaykh Nuh Keller is making a comparison between latter-day Ash’aris and Maturidis. That is to say, I think there are more differences to be found when considering these schools in their earlier stages. The views on “good (hasan)” and “bad (qabih)” (and basically the role of reason in general) seem to be fairly different if you look into the past. So one may make the case that these schools, in their “authentic” forms, may actually have a greater difference than you see in the Shaykh’s description.

    • Thanks for that knowledge
      I was just trying to illustrate the key differences between the two theological schools but you’re contribution is welcome

      • For the record, I am not highlighting extra differences for nothing. I think it’s important for people to know that it is in fact an orthodox position that we are allowed to use our heads. The problem with these latter-day developments which disparage reason is that they give credence to people who want to bash you over the head with hadiths, along with the resultant fiqh, which don’t make sense.

    • @neuralminstrel, no this is not true. There are no differences between early and latter-day both Asharis and Maturidis unless ‘latter-day’ means 20th century or something like this. Just to make it clear, there are differences between Asharis and Maturidis but that has nothing to do with the time of the scholars. The Ashari and Maturidi scholars did not change their beliefs- There might have been individual positions. Everything else is a myth.

      • @Purani

        I’m referring to developments in at least the last two centuries. Compare, for instance, the opinion on hasan and qabih given in Qamar al-Aqmār ʿalā Nūr al-Anwār with the opinion in Mizan al-usul fi nata’ij al-‘uqul.

      • Regardless of whatever has been said, both the Asharis and Maturidis are the accepted schools in Sunni Islam. We may dispute on some matters and make mistakes but alas, this is human nature. May Allah forgive us and rectify our states.

      • I can agree there. There is no guarantee for original beliefs when it comes to the last century but also for the 19th century in many cases. Especially when it is about Indian scholars. Initially I thought you meant Hanafi scholars like Nasafi, Ibn Abidin, Ibn Hummam and so on left the original Maturidi path.

        As bediuzzamansaidnursi123 pointed out both Ashari and Maturidi theologies are accepted and every attempt to make a fundamental difference between them is an attempt to compromise Sunni Islam and thus Islam itself.

        In this hasan-qabh/’problem of evil’ issue the most important thing to note is that the result of the Ashari and Maturidi belief is the same. Asharis emphasise the Omnipotence of God and therefore do not negate the impossibility of evil acts by God through His intrinsic Nature.
        The main problem with the Mu’tazilah is the issue of free will. To solve the problem of evil they have to declare evil acts as being independently created from God which solves the problem of evil but crushes the Almightiness and Oneness of God.
        That is why I have to reject the statement that Mu’tazilah are more reliable than Asharis. The Imam of Tawhid Abu Mansur al Maturidi would not have accepted this under no circumstances. This issue is the main problem with Mu’tazilah unlike the common opinion it was the creation of the Quran or even ‘rationalism’.

    • That is completely correct. Lately they came together against Hanbalis/Salafis. But differences are big and arguments were taking place even at Imam Razis’ time.

      According to earliest Maturidis, Asharis are not even as correct as Mu’tazzila. So according to them, Mu’tazzila are more reliable than Asharis.

      Just look at books of Imam Ashari and Imam Maturidi. First issue, Asharism is not by Ashari but his students. You will straight away notice from their writings that Maturidi is using rationalist approach to aqeeda and Ashari is answering everything by hadith whether it makes sense or not.
      It was students of Ashari that sorted out the issues. Or tried to.

      • “…Thus, (al-Ash’ari’s) approach was perfected and became one of the best speculative disciplines and religious sciences. However, the forms of its arguments are, at times, not technically perfect), because the scholars (of al-Ash’ari’s time) were simple and the science of logic which probes arguments and examines syllogisms had not yet made its appearance in Islam. Even if some of it had existed, the theologians would not have used it, because it was so closely related to the philosophical sciences, which are altogether different from the beliefs of the religious law and were, therefore, avoided by them.”

        Source: Ibn Khaldun’s Al Muqaddima (translated by Franz Rosenthal)
        It backs up mmmclmru’s view that Asharism as we know it developed after Imam Ashari himself.
        Nonetheless, its interesting to hear what one of our great scholars have had to say on this matter

      • “The anthropomorphists (mujassimah) did something similar in affirming that
        God has a body but not one like (ordinary human) bodies. The word “body” is not used in connection with (God) in the Muslim religio-legal tradition, but they were emboldened in their statement by the fact that they affirmed the (literal) existence of these plain statements. They did not restrict themselves to them, but went deeper into the matter and affirmed the corporeality (of God).They assumed something like (what has just been mentioned) concerning (the meaning of corporeality). They (wanted to) free (God from human attributes) by the contradictory, nonsensical statement, “A body not like (ordinary human) bodies.” But in the language of the Arabs, body is something that has depth and is limited.
        Other interpretations, such as the one that (body) is something persisting in itself, or is something composed of the elements, and other things, reflect the technical terms of speculative theology, through which (the theologians) want to get at anothermeaning than that indicated by the language. Thus, the anthropomorphists are more involved (than others) in innovation, and, indeed, in unbelief. They assume puzzling attributes for God which suggest deficiency (on His part) and which are not mentioned in either the Word of God or that of His Prophet.”

        Source – Ibn Khaldun’s Al Muqaddima (again). It contains a wealth of knowledge. A rare gem covering pretty much every science known at the time of the Berber scholar.

        Please note his warning about the anthropomorphists and how they are misled from the true path.

      • The question is were there differences that significantly mattered for belief? Is the belief of Asharis faulty according to Maturidis and vice versa? If this was the case it would be an important matter. This would harm the integrity of the Islamic belief system and cannot be simply acknowledged without taking serious measures to solve the problem.
        I am aware of the differences between Asharis and Maturidis and also about the way the early Ashari scholars where talking. They used to emphasise that the Sifat have to be accepted without explaining. So they used to say that Allah is on the Throne and Allah has hands. But they always clearly stated that God is not a bodily entity and that ‘above’ has nothing to do with spatial directions nor that the “Hands” are bodily parts. The later Asharis did not maintain reciting this Sifat. The Salafis or many Hanbalis/Shafiis on the other hand used to say “a body but not like ours” or “Hands but not like ours”. There is a huge difference between these two. It is a difference between belief and blasphemy.

        Therefore I say that we should discuss about the differences but keep in mind that the fundamental agreed-upon basis for Islamic theology has to uphold and not carelessly overridden.

      • Again, that is nonsense. You just made takfir on al Mutazzila and accused them of engaging in Shirk. That was stupid. You never studied nay of their own books before doing that did you? Do you think they really said that acts are created independently from God? So who made these acts, a second god?

  11. Regarding the argument that Rasulullah(SAW) was literate how would you interpret the ayat:

    Chapter (29) sūrat l-ʿankabūt (The Spider)

    Sahih International: And you did not recite before it any scripture, nor did you inscribe one with your right hand. Otherwise the falsifiers would have had [cause for] doubt.

    Pickthall: And thou (O Muhammad) wast not a reader of any scripture before it, nor didst thou write it with thy right hand, for then might those have doubted, who follow falsehood.

    Yusuf Ali: And thou wast not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: In that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted.

    • Where do any of those say he was illiterate?

      If I say to you ‘you never read the Bible’, does that mean you are illiterate.

      Also, if you are illiterate at one stage in your life, like we all were, does it mean you stay that way.

      So if we don’t think and use our brain, Qur’an nor anything else will help us.

      Did you also notice that none of those translations even agree with each other?

      • As I’ve picked up from the teachings of Said Nursi, an analogy (common feature in his Risale-i-Nur) is needed here.

        Say you read a medical textbook. You read some facts about how to treat particular diseases in a detailed manner in how to spot them, what causes them, how to get rid of them etc. But you only read it once and not with an instructor to check your understanding. Will you then go around and start diagnosing people with diseases? No, you wouldn’t even dare! You would have to study a 6 year course + get a degree or something to prove your credentials. People would also have to recognise your credentials as well in order to trust you.

        But then why would you do so with the Qur’an and Hadith?! Is that not more crazy? Are you not playing around with someone faith? The arrogance of some people to just jump straight in to Islamic sources is just baffling. Yet again, it highlights ignorance prevailing and the ability to pick and choose without reasoning and any understanding of the language (ARABIC, not English). Generally, Muslims don’t bother to do background checks = anyone is a scholar.

    • So I don’t need to even interpret it. Rather, you need to read it properly.

      Also, you think that ‘Sahih International’ by Saudi is an acceptable translation of Qur’an?

      Simple question for all you guys:
      If RasoolAllah wanted to learn to read, could he? If yes then that’s it and if not then you just insulted his intelligence (Salafis are proud of that kind of stuff).

      Supplemental question for people of brain: when Prophet saw preserved tablet, could he read it?
      Or was it by ‘ESP’? In which case, what was the point of showing him then?

  12. “It is what happens when you send Salafis to Western University. You get the
    worst of both.”

    That reminds me of another thing : this Taha over here is perhaps the same
    Taha who owns a Muslim blog and describes himself as a student in biochemistry or
    something like that. If so, that would demonstrate yet another gigantic inconsistency
    in his Salafi thinking. Many Salafis say they hate “Greek philosophy” and love “modern science”
    but this doesn’t make any sense.

    Modern science is modern philosophy in action, and modern philosophy is mostly “Greek”
    philosophy – it came back with the Renaissance, forcing the “semitic” component of
    Christianity to move out.

    Denouncing the dangers of “Greek philosophy” is an intellectually defensible position-
    indeed, many “perennialists” could fit that description.
    But if one wishes to go that path, one should be consistent and denounce equally all
    the problems with modern science : harm to the environment, uncontrolled tendencies to serve totalitarian
    ends or oppression, to feed anti-religious sentiment, etc.

    This alone is enough to prove that all that “Qur’an confirmed by modern science” stuff
    is nonsense. Modern science is not there to “confirm” religion – it will either be corrected
    and saved by some religion, or it will eventually lead to the total destruction
    of a civilization too absorbed in it.

    • This is indeed an enormous defamation of the great European scientists beginning from Sir Isaac Newton to say that their achievement is due to the anti-empiricist, anti-rationalist methaphysical empty talk practiced by the Greek philosophers. This is a revisionist attack on science.
      But I am not saying there were no good thinkers and scientists among the Greeks.

      • You hit precisely touching points!
        However, the fact of the matter is that most Muslims (regardless of whoever they’re affiliated with) do not bother to study these types of knowledge. Each sect will offer their own view regarding philosophy and its associated branches (often a negative view) and the person informed will just take it face value and see philosophy as nothing more than a “heresy” and just dismiss it as a tool of the West to attack Islam.
        I was discouraged from taking philosophy because someone told me I had to study proper theology before I did so. That being said, I realised that NO MUSLIM studies proper theology before the age of 16 (in the UK) and going by this logic, will never be able to study philosophy because of not learning theology first. (I’m hoping to become a Historian insha’Allah so it doesn’t matter too much in my case)

        This approach is not going to work in the long term. Too easily are Muslims confused and dehumanised by modern sciences which can easily be solved with proper study and reflection. Unfortunately, when Muslims, who grow up in a narrow minded view of Islam, the world, the sciences etc., start questioning the religion over issues that could have been dealt with if proper education was a priority, can end up becoming a Literalist or even become atheists.
        Sadly, this is never the case – almost like sinking further and further into a quagmire.

      • No it ISN’T. You have the same mental issue as Salafis and their insane hatred for Aristotle etc.

        Have you studied this stuff AT ALL? If not control yourself.

        What we call ‘modern science’ is very much based on the Greek heritage. Literally NO academic on planet Earth denies this. Neither did the scientists of the enlightenment. And certainly not Newton – who spent more time on Alchemy and philosophy as well as hermetics and theology than science. So is Islamic science indebted to the Greeks. Show me the Islamic scientists not indebted to the Greeks such as Plato and Aristotle.

        And where are you getting this crap about metaphysics being empty from? Maturidi mentioned Aristotle several times by name in his Kitab ut Tawhid. Don’t get so fanatical based on nothing.

        First question: did you read Aristotle or Plato? If you did, you would know that Aristole talks a lot about empiricism and what is wrong with it. All of the Islamic scientists from Al Kindi, Haythami, Ibn Sina everyone are children and disciples of his. All are idiots according to you.

        Renaissance artists and scientists in Europe were OPEN about their admiration for the Greeks and their debt to them. Historians talk about how the Greek heritage was preserved and passed back into Europe by Muslims. How do you not know this?

  13. You are either very stupid that you don’t understand that when Akram Nadwi’s speaks of approaching the Quran in an “ummi” manner, his reference is to an approach that is not clouded with preconceived notions. Or you are so filled with hatred for Akram Nadwi that you mendaciously twist his words, and attribute opinions to him that are not voiced by him in the lecture.

    If you were familiar with Shaykh’s approach to teaching you wouldn’t have waffled on about him dumbing things down. If anything he tries to actively engage his students to study the Quran, ponder over it, and learn Arabic to be able to access the message directly. How many of his books have you read? How many lectures have you listened to?

    Your hatred and arrogance are shocking. May God guide you to the straight path and give you the sense to respect scholars of the deen, instead of cowardly attacking them from behind the anonymity of the internet and a pseudonym. Man up, or shut up!

    • Uh, THAT’S all you can come up with?

      I was going to trash this comment as it is information free and it is obvious you didn’t watch or read the article either. But then I thought what better way of illustrating the rip off that constitutes Nadwi and other scholars lectures than by showing the hideous level of defence and learning offered by the very people who attend them!

      So… Sheikh Nadwi puts this tripe out there for all to see but we are supposed to know how he (not Islam or Arabic but he) uses these terms from his other lectures? BTW, you lied anyway as he didn’t use ‘ummi‘ in any other way anyway – anyone whom saw the lecture can see that. You just commented to defend your Sheikh without reading or watching didn’t you? Otherwise you would know that there are already two other articles on this site exposing his hideous errors in other lectures! And yet you are challenging us about how much more of his nonsense we have endured! LOL!

      Also, so now you have to be Hafiz of Nadwi before watching his lectures is it?!

      And he encourages you to learn Arabic. Does he now? How come you can’t address his schoolboy errors in Arabic before telling us he ‘teaches’ it? Don’t you have to study or know something yourself before ‘teaching’ it? Is that why you ignored all of the Arabic errors that were pointed out. And they were BAD ones…

      Also, giving your actual name before making an argument as you claim – is it an Islamic position? Salafis always come out with this crap ‘give us your name!’. For what? So things aren’t true unless you give your name? Funny!

      I like how you were unable to respond to any of the points – including his Kufri statements such as denying the attribute of God and saying that God ‘thinks’ – which is kufr according to Maturidis, Asharis and even Salafis! But of course, as his student, you won’t be able to answer any of that will you?

      Just posting to feel like you did something isn’t it? But it is just hollow and pathetic posing isn’t it, like Nadwi himself?

      • Favourite Celebrity Scholar defending at its clearest!

        An excellent analysis of this sort of modern Muslim thinking has been written by Mohammed Ghilan. It’s mainly about “political” fatwas but it deals with that celebrity status that Muslims are elevating their Shaykhs and Imams to which is an innovation in itself.

        “Finally, not everything needs a fatwa. We may claim that we do not have a clergy in Islam in the same way as Catholics have a Pope and a Vatican Church. But the fact is, too many of us have voluntarily surrendered our moral judgment on matters such as the taking of innocent human life to the discretion of scholars we emotionally attached ourselves to. The respect and adoration scholars get cannot be at the expense of doing or saying what is right and speaking against what is wrong. We should not hesitate to hold our scholars and preachers accountable when we see them pandering to tyrannical rulers.”

        See rest of article here:

      • salam o alaikum

        I have been reading your articles for well over 6 months now, they were the main reason I left ahmadiyyat. You really showed me an insight to the beauty of Islam. However, I am always eager to push these beautiful ideas in a non-attacking way. Yes we can criticize but it should not be an attacking game. At the end of the day, we have to help these people. I have many salafist friends that I do work on, but it does take time.

        I would suggest that this sort of work should be publicized and talked about more, why cant we talk about the beautiful quranic and Islamic values, promote these and shut down the concepts that lead to hatred or violence. I’m also a fan of hamza yusuf but his work against the traditionalist and narrow-minded interpretations of salafis and others are not enough. The thing is with me at the moment is that I’m only 18 and I hope there are people out that support my way of thinking and I will allow criticism to be pointed at me. But I find it difficult to side with one madhab and spend the rest of my life defending it’s weaknesses. But if we promote a peaceful and logical islam, then I am sure most people would be attracted to our methodology.

        I truly believe that this sort of work will really be helpful to a lot of muslims living today. We should show the the true essence and the true moral values within islam that have been stolen by individuals and largely ignored by the ummah.

        I would love to hear back from you.

      • Thanks so much for this comment – it is much appreciated.

        You made some very interesting points – especially as regards madhabs and about what is the Islam we SHOULD be promoting. No doubt what so-called Sunni Muslims are promoting at the moment is not worthy to be followed by Muslims let alone anyone else. Similarly, Hamza Yusuf and others are playing games – rational when it suits them, text when it suits them. It is just like the Salafis actually a lot of the time.

        Insha’Allah I will reply back with some more details about the madhabs and how to deal with Salafis soon!

  14. Assalamu Alaykum

    mmmclmru , your articles are interesting, but do you really have to refer to those who post comments that disagree with you as “stupid” or “idiot” ? Try to decrease your condescending tone when replying to detractors, and it will be much more effective.


    a non-Sunni reader from the USA

    • alaikum salaam

      which one is more harmful btw? admin’s harsh tone telling some people to get reality check…. or attributing crap to islam?

      since you’re not Sunni, not too long ago here a person claming himself Shia deceptively, while openly stating support to ISIS and declaring takfir. what are you supposed to call that?

    • I will say that sometimes mmmclru does come off a little hostile sometimes when it’s unneeded, but that’s evidently because of the crap he has to deal with–I’d lose patience too. I won’t deny that sometimes the stupidity he has to deal with a lot of the time would be absolutely hilarious if it weren’t so sad.

      (also, ‘murican represent!)

  15. There are only two types of forums/blogs dealing with controversial subjects.
    The first type is the sectarian type, dedicated to a many-voiced monologue between members of a same sect , members who agree on mostly everything.
    The second type is the open type. By definition it must allow for a reasonable level of insult, and it is the hardest to manage.
    There is no such thing as a category in-between those two.

    People intending to tell others how to run controversial blogs could perhaps manage a controversial blog of their own before starting to teach others on how to be “more effective”.

    • Well summed up

      Most people only like to be on forums where they can agree on a subject and share in their ignorance together. An “Orthodoxy” of whatever sort will be agreed upon.
      When they enter open ended forums, they’re effectively scandalised by what they will view as “heterodox” views being proclaimed. This usually leads to covert, sly attacks on the author or contributer e.g. mmmclmru to try and discredit them WHILST at the same time importing their own sectarian views onto these open forums. People who are interested in these contentious issues are then easily swayed into false/ignorant/misleading arguments.

      You see this quite a lot on this website.

  16. Having seen many comments and some down right ignorant statements about Greek philosophy, let it be known that the Golden Age of Islam, which produced Scientists, (Muslim) Philosophers, Artists, Humanists etc. ALL derived their knowledge from the Islamic sources (Qur’an, Hadith etc.) and the translation of foreign works/philosophies (Greek, Indian, Chinese etc.). The Arabs understood these works and based their own ideas of them. Eventually, these works reentered Renaissance Europe but with improvements/additions made by Islamic civilisation.
    Therefore, regardless of what anyone says about Greek philosophy itself, it is something we are indebted to as modern science bases itself of that.

    Here is a download link to a fantastic work dedicated to documenting the Golden Age of Islam

    Lost History – The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Scientists, Thinkers and Artists

  17. Salam o alaikum

    So what does allah mean when he says to bring a verse or chapter like it, surly it cannot be linguistic.

    So have u got an idea of what allah may of had mean by that?


    • Taken from Said Nursi’s ‘The Words, 20th Word” – it discusses a lot of the miraculous aspects of the Qur’an including its linguistics and eloquence

      “If you are in doubt concerning what We have sent down on Our servant, then bring a sura like it and call your helpers and witnesses, other than God, if you are truthful.” (2:23)

      The verse, directed to humanity and jinn, briefly means:
      If you think a human being wrote the Qur’an, let one of your unlettered people, as Muhammad ﷺ is unlettered, produce something similar. If he cannot, send your most famous writers or scholars. If they cannot, let them work together and call upon
      all their history, “deities,” scientists, philosophers, sociologists, theologians, and writers to produce something similar. If they cannot, let them try leaving aside the miraculous and inimitable aspects of its meaning to produce a work of equal eloquence in word order and composition.

      By: “Then bring 10 suras like it, contrived” (11:13),

      The Qur’an means:
      What you write does not have to be true. But if
      you still cannot match the Qur’an’s length, produce only 10 chapters. If you cannot do that, produce only one chapter. If you cannot do that, produce only a short chapter. If you cannot do that—whichyou cannot—although such inability will put your honor, religion, nationality, lives, and property at risk,
      you will die humiliated.

      Moreover, as stated in: “Then
      fear the Fire, whose fuel is people and stones”(2:24), you and your idols will spend eternity in Hell. Having understood your eight degrees of inability, what else can you do but admit eight times that the Qur’an is a miracle?

      As for silencing, consider: There cannot be and
      is no need for any other exposition after that of the Qur’an, as well as:

      “Therefore remind. By Your Lord’s blessing you (Oh Muhammad) are not a soothsayer, neither possessed. Or do they say: “He is a poet for whom we await what fate will bring?” Say: “Wait. I shall be waiting with you.”
      Or do their intellects bid them to do this? Or are they an insolent, rebellious people? Or do they say: “He has invented it?” Nay, but they do not believe.Then let them bring a discourse like it, if they speak truly. Or were they created out of nothing? Or are they the creators? Or did they create the heavens and Earth? Nay, but they do not have sure belief. Or are your Lord’s treasuries in their keeping? Or are they the watching registrars? Or do they have a ladder whereon they listen? Then let any of them that listened bring a clear authority. Or does He have daughters, and they sons? Or do you ask them for a wage, and so they are weighed down with debt? Or is the Unseen in their keeping, and so they are writing it down? Or do they intend a plot? But those who disbelieve, are they the outwitted? Or have they a god, other than God? Glory be to God, above that
      which they associate. (52:29-43)

      If you are interested in further reading, here is the PDF link to Nursi’s exposition of the Qur’an in his view

      I hope I have helped 🙂

  18. Echoing a comment I saw on Shaykh Atabek’s Facebook timeline: does anyone here know of a sīra text that is free from strange (according to Māturīdīs) matters?

  19. Here’s some notes from a lecture the Shaikh done with regards to Rumi’s Masnavi. Reading this article you would think the Shaikh hates the great Rumi when it’s in fact the reverse. Shaikh Akram’s farther Abul Hassan al Nadwi also wrote a book (The revivers of the islamic faith) and talked in depth about Rumi and his poems, the good and the Islamically untenable. One common thread is they are honest and respectful unlike your article. I’ve been trying to find a place that is not like the dawahman but I guess the Internet will continue to produce ‘refutations’ like yours.

    • Okay, so saying that Rumi is trying to rival the Qur’an (*sans proof or explanation) is ‘honest and respectful’?

      Also, you know that what people’s dads say isn’t proof of anything? Since most of Nadwi type guys think that the Prophets parents were disbelievers (*they weren’t) is that a proof of his beliefs? Stupid.

      Stop trying this emotional blackmail you deranged fanboy!

      Once again, timewasters who fail to address a single point. Sadly typical of those who waste time and money on these Sheikh ‘concerts’.

      You forgot to show any examples of ‘disrespect’ and ‘dishonesty’ in the article either. Assuming Nadwi is worthy of any respect.

      Keep looking for a place – but you already found it with Nadwi, so why lie?

      I removed your link since you gave no proof apart from ‘read these notes’ = free advertising, which we don’t do here.

      • You are a filthy disgusting infidel. Just take care you don’t display your real identity. Someone’s gonna do a Salman Taseer with you. Just saying.

      • Wow you really are disrespectful. You can call me a fanboy etc which is disappointing. You call the Shaikh a charlatan with a questiona mark and then critque a video. My primary point to you is that the Shaikh is a scholar. I have given you notes which you said we’re advertising. If you clicked on the link you would of seen it was a Google drive document. Therein you would of found a scholar whom you call a salafi teaching the Masnavi, explaining what is good and just and what is ambiguous and at best and egregious. His father, Abul Hassan Al Nadwi (who I believe was a Naqshabandi sufi) has written a book which does the aforementioned in a more articulate and academic manner. The ‘salafi’ shaikh’s sufi father’s book is called ‘The revivers of the Islamic faith’.

        Now you’re probably waiting for the bit where I show you your ‘mistakes’ and talk about Quran and Sunnah. Nope!!! You can find your own mistakes. Next time you want to call a scholar who is as well rounded and educated as Shaikh Akram, makes sure you actually read his stuff.

        Lastly your article although well argued just reads like a typical online salafi refutation. And your insults on me being deranged and a fanboy reads like a typical dawahman guy. See we’ve finally got a scholar who is orthodox and who hasn’t been through the schools of Al Saud, giving good lectures on Sufism and Tassawuf and yet he gets called a charlatan by someone who hasn’t even read simple lecture notes on the Masnavi by said scholar. Last time I spoke to a salafi brother about Rumi; he said ‘isn’t he the guy that invented the twirling around’. If only he went to the Shaikh’s class!
        From a deranged fanboy apparently 😲

  20. If you want to know my real identity so badly, you can just ask your momma! I know her pretty well.

    I’m leaving this comment up so the guy who though you were a ”great guy’and wanted to have tea with you can learn some important life lessons.

    Although, Muslims hardly ever learn the easy way isn’t it?

    • I’m getting really angry. Ban me so that I cannot write. I don’t want to read anything from you bastards anymore.

      You are the worst of mankind.

  21. I’m quite happy to respect either opinion. I don’t feel like I am knowledgable enough to judge Sh. Akram, I like scholars who agree with him and I like scholars that disagree too.

    I think however that the way you have spoken in this comment section has been with extreme disrespect.

    ‘If you want to know my real identity so badly, you can just ask your momma!’

    Really? Is this how muslims speak to each other?

    • You vile hypocrite!

      You DARE to correct me and insinuate that Muslims don’t speak ‘like that’ (crypto-takfir) and say NOTHING about the comment mine was in response to:

      You are a filthy disgusting infidel. Just take care you don’t display your real identity. Someone’s gonna do a Salman Taseer with you. Just saying‘.

      But I’M the one getting told off for ‘extreme disrespect’ for telling that guy to ask his mum!

      Typical Nadwi fanboys – calling someone kaafir and giving an open death threat – no stress. Respond, and adab police comes out! Honestly, how can you even talk about Islam!

      BTW if you hate bad language so much ask your Sheikhs, like Nadwi, why they say that Prophet told people to ‘bite’ their father’s penis (or in another narration, to suck it) Allah forbid!

      Also, if you are ‘not able to judge Sheikhs’ then why aren’t you an atheist or pagan or something? How did you judge all those atheist scientist or the Ope if you are not ‘knowledgeable enough’. You Twit. If you don’t have brain to decide about religion, why are you even Muslim? Nadwi – is he like God to you, so don’t question him is it?

  22. Akram Nadwi did not write the book on the Female Scholars, he merely translated it and now he claims to be an author. There is a big deception going on, where the youth is ‘enlightened’ into the New World Order by scholar merchants, who sell their souls for a piece of the world. Think, easy fame, ready made institutions and hard drive marketing to get a scholar who English is barely tangible to write a book in a language that is not his forte. Such scholars want to make it difficult for the youth to ‘think’ by constantly drilling into them ‘pay us and we’ll guide you’, into an enlightment not short of mind control. This is big business and a lot of money is involved in these institutions.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s