Muslim & Modern

Passionately challenging mainstream views crafted by medieval Islamic jurisprudents

Share/Save/Bookmark

Muslim & Modern
by varjavand
04-Feb-2009
 

The Muslim Next Door
The Qur'an, the Media, and That Veil Thing
by Sumbul Ali-Karamali
White Cloud Press (2008)

REVIEW
After the rise of so called Islamic fundamentalism and the perceived threat against the west, Islam has been subject to scrutiny, interpretation, and critical analysis by Muslims as well as non-Muslims in the United States. Countless numbers of books have been published. "The Muslim Next Door" is one of the best. It is a very fascinating book that offers a refreshing departure from the ordinary presentations of Islam by others.

It examines a wide variety of issues pivotal to the religion of Islam. The author, Ms. Sumbul Ali-Karamali, a Western educated Muslim woman, offers her own views concerning these pivotal issues, especially those related to Muslim women, their role, and their rights under Islamic law. Her analyses are always logical, occasionally polemic, but always well-versed and masterfully presented.

I have found this book really enlightening and consider it a must-read book for every Muslim living in the United States. Justifiably, the author analyzes these issues through the lens of her own life experience in the United States and the Islam acquired through oral tradition from her parents, family, and friends.

She argues rightfully that because Islam is over 1,400 years old, it is almost impossible to accurately find out everything about this religion. “And because it is difficult to know exactly what happened hundreds of years ago, historical debates surrounding religion have always raged, too”. Most Islamic laws, therefore, are based on medieval texts and the interpretations of Quranic verses compiled throughout the history of Islam by religious scholars and passed on from one generation to the next. Such interpretations are often marred by tribal culture, traditions, biases, and personal opinions.

The author believes, as do many other Muslims, that the Quran cannot be translated into non-Arabic languages because these translations fail to convey its intended message. If that is the case, then how can the message of the Quran be communicated accurately to non-Arabic speakers such as Iranians who must be able to read it in Farsi?

I believe the prohibition against translating the Quran into other languages is purely political and not religious. It is designed to confer and to preserve power among religious clergy who have always sought to keep the monopoly of power to themselves. Even though translation of holy Quran is not allowed, there are many voluminous interpretations of the Quran written by various Islamic scholars from different Islamic branches.

In various chapters of her book, the author often offers her own alternative interpretations of some important Quranic verses, especially verses related to women and family. I have found her interpretations quite pioneering. While there can be no qualms about such interpretations, I wish her good luck explaining them to the fanatic Mullahs in Islamic countries.

Understandably, the author analyzes the issues from the perspective of someone who has lived comfortably in one of the most affluent, most democratic nations on the face of earth and as one protected by the secular laws of this nation. However, women in Islamic countries do not get much respect, power, or opportunities under religious laws. Often they have no choice but to submit to this unpleasant acquiescence.

Historically, Islamic women have not been given proper recognition, a situation that has survived well into the present. The common mentality is that the primary duties of women are raising children and serving their husbands. While such a similar biased mentality can be found in other countries, it is more intense in Muslim societies that are rooted mostly in the textual Islamic documents of the medieval era. Based on commonly relied upon interpretations of the Quran, some Muslim jurisprudents have espoused the idea that women are inferior to men and hence, must be subordinate to them.

The author holds to her courageous view that most verses of the Quran, especially those that are considered unfair or sexist by Westerners, were written in a seventh century society and were revealed to the prophet Muhammad in response to particular situations that occurred during his lifetime.

Despite that assertion, however, she occasionally insists on their applicability to modern societies of the twenty-first century, and she repeatedly tries to innovate odd justifications for them. (See especially pages 80-82.) This is indeed a clever approach. I think it is the duty of every Muslim living in this country to find ways to shed some light of plausibility on such Islamic issues in an effort to modernize this religion.

In my opinion, occasionally the author comes across minor inaccuracies in this book such as “Quran is the only miracle Muhammad ever claimed”. In fact, the Quran was put together by the third successor to the prophet Muhammad, Othman, twenty years after the death of prophet. How then can the prophet claim the Quran as his miracle if it did not exist in his time?

If the Quran was prepared based on the words of the prophet, one may wonder who decided what should be included and what should be excluded from this sacred book. One also wonders why the Quran was not prepared while the prophet was alive. This would have enabled him to sanction the authenticity of what was included in the Quran or remove any verses that may not be the words of God. I believe Islam cannot be flexible and hence, cannot be modernized while we hold onto such a dogmatic view of the Quran.

I believe the author is sincere in her endeavor to prove that Islam is not sexist. Such an attempt is indeed commendable and I think necessary. Her favorable views and well-crafted justifications of the Quranic verses related to women reflect the fact that she has received her pacifist, inclusive Islam from her parents; but it is very different from the Islam imposed by religious rulers and practiced in many prominent Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. She is probably unaware of the kind of desolation this gloomy brand of Islam has created for people like my folks back home. They have lived all their life in deprivation and poverty believing, as Mullahs have always told them, that this world was indeed the “prison of the pious people.”

I wish that Ms. Ali-Karamali’s views could be heard, sanctioned, and adopted by these Mullahs who are so powerful that they can change people’s lives by the stroke of a pen or by the words they utter.

To prove that Islam is neither sexist nor oppressive to women, she explains how women have been appointed to top government positions in some Muslim countries like Iran. This is true, however, we should also remember that some of the improvements that have taken place in a few Muslim countries were not the result of the voluntary softening of positions by Mullahs, but were in response to pressure exerted by feminist groups and ultra-national organizations. Even with this pressure, the fundamental basis sanctioning the unequal treatment of men and women is still intact.

We should also keep in mind that if the same top executive women want to leave their country, they must still obtain permission from their husbands as if they were minors. (This was a requirement at the onset of the IRI and it may still be in effect.) Contrary to the author’s statement in page 10 that “women have historically led prayers and continue to do so today,” women cannot be imam and lead prayers because they cannot stand in front of the men while praying. Women cannot even stand at the side of the men either.

Because Sumbul Ali-Karamali lives in the US and not in one of these strict Muslim societies, her knowledge of what is actually happening in some Muslim countries in the name of Islam is perhaps scant. The author writes (page 123) that Quran puts “women on equal footing with men” based on Verse 35, Surah 33. I checked this verse and found nothing in it that could be explicitly construed as equal treatment of men and women.

Ms. Ali-Karamali keeps referring to the historical instances of unjust behaviors or ruthless customs directed against women in Western countries or other parts of the world. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with that nor with comparing Islamic laws with the pre-Islamic tribal customs and traditions of the Arabian Peninsula as she has done in almost every chapter of her book.

No one disputes that Islam tried earnestly to uplift the status of women in the seventh century; at that time there was unquestionably significant broad-based improvement. However, that fact should not constitute an excuse for continuing to impose seventh century restrictions on women in a modern era known for its attention to women suffrage, social justice and feminism.

I think the problem is that some Islamic apologists insist that these laws are eternal and unalterable and, therefore, must be exercised by Islamic society even in the twenty-first century. It seems to me that these apologists do not have the desire or the courage to modernize and revamp these outdated laws so that they can be practiced in modern societies.

Throughout the history of this great religion, the Quranic verses have been manipulated by backward-minded men to further their misogamist agenda and to serve their own self interest. For instance, while there is no outright mandate in the Quran for women to cover their hair, in many Islamic countries, veiling has become the most strictly enforced Islamic dress code and the most visible sign of being a Muslim woman around the world.

In Iran, for example, the police will arrest and dehumanize any woman who does not fully comply with the strictly imposed Islamic dress code. The crucial issue concerning the veil is that people should not be denied the freedom to choose whatever they wish to wear; the author has admirably asserted this throughout her book. “I have never been secluded or housebound or veiled,” she says in page 132. However, imposing certain dress codes is undemocratic and should not be tolerated because it is oppressive. I believe that mandatory veiling is a means by which men can force their tyrannical whim upon women.

The author of this book associates women wearing the head scarf with freedom, freedom from harassment or being ogled. She goes on further to claim that “The hijab sends a message, ‘Hands off; I am not available, and stop treating me like a sex object.’” Frankly, I found this statement outlandish because it implies that women who do not wear Islamic hijab, or women who are not veiled, are available. If we have to cover women because men may stare at them or harass them, isn’t that like penalizing the victim instead of the culprits? Why should women be covered and wrapped because of the promiscuity of men?

The author continues to say, “The hijab sends the message that the appearance and body image do not equal the sum total of our worth as human beings.” For her information, in Tehran, the capital of the Islamic Republic of Iran and a city of more than ten million Muslim inhabitants, veiling is mandatory. Tehran also has earned the dubious distinction of being the “nose-job capital of the world.” Veiling, therefore, has not prevented millions of women living in Tehran from being fascinated with and concerned about their body image.

In defense of polygamy which is allowed by Islam, the author appeals to part of a Quranic verse that seems to require “equal treatment” among wives as a precondition for polygamy. The author interprets that phrase as a deterrent to polygamy and as an intent to ban it gradually. She argues in page 142 that Islam “allows polygamy reluctantly and fence restriction around it.” Equal treatment, however, is a vague phrase because it does not specify what constitutes “equal treatment.” If it means equal economic treatment, which I think it does, then it favors only wealthy men who can afford to have up to four wives which he can also afford to treat them economically equal. I think if Islam wants a man to marry only one woman at a time, it should say so with no ambiguity.

The author mentions in page 147 that “At least one verse of Quran implied that women should have divorce rights equal to those of men.” It is not clear which Quranic verse has granted the equal right to divorce to women. I checked her reference to Surah 2, verse 228 as her source, but this Surah has only 200 verses, so there might be a typographical error here. As far as I know, Tunisia, through its court system, is the only Muslim country that has recognized and granted Islamic women the right to divorce.

The author also believes that wife beating, which is allowed in the Quranic verse Surah 4, verse 34, is reserved only for cases of “grave and known sin” (fahsha). The question then arises, what happens if a man commits the grave and known sin? Who is going to beat him? Technically, however, this will not happen because a man can claim that he is married to the woman, especially under Shia Islam which allows temporary marriage (motah).

I wholeheartedly commend Ms. Ali-Karamali’s courage in challenging so passionately the mainstream views that have been crafted by the medieval Islamic jurisprudents who have resorted to every possible Quranic verse or hadith to justify these views. I wish this book could be translated into other languages and sold in Islamic countries. However, I doubt it can be sold in many Muslim countries because the author has chosen to put an unveiled picture of herself on the cover.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by varjavandCommentsDate
The Rise of Secular America
6
Oct 29, 2012
War with Iran and the Economy
10
Oct 10, 2012
Why Do We Believe? II
-
Aug 25, 2012
more from varjavand
 
capt_ayhab

Varjavand

by capt_ayhab on

thanks pal, I appreciate it.

It is fundamentalism like that which gets blown out of proportion.

Regards

capt_ayhab [-YT]


varjavand

Capt_ayhab

by varjavand on

 

It was reported by ABC News. Please check the following link

//abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6817669


capt_ayhab

Mr. Varjavand

by capt_ayhab on

you say[ 1. Muslims believe that Quran was preserved in oral as well written
forms during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad by the Sahaba, the companions of Prophet. Therefore, a version of Quran did exist in his
lifetime. After many years of his death, eventually, all the texts were collected and put together in form of a book, the official version of Quran, by Othamn.
]

Due respect, this statement is totally false.

the Qur'an began with Muhammad's claims of divine revelations in 610 AD. The verses of the Qur'an were written down and memorized during his life. After his death and the Battle of Yamama in December 632, written collections started to take form. The caliph Uthman standardized one particular arrangement of the Qur'anic chapters in c. 653/654 AD. The text was later given vowel pointing and punctuation in the seventh and eighth centuries.

As you see Uthman[Osman] STANDARDIZED the Qur'an and arranged the order of the sorah's[books] as we see today. In fact the original copy, in his hand writing is still in existence in Museum in Mashhad.

Brief History of Compilation of the Qur'an. Perspectives. Vol 3, No. 4, Aug/Sept 1997

On your point #2, yes it is a fact that every and all translations MUST be accompanied by the actual Arabic text. However as to the authenticity of the news, will you kindly provide proper reference regarding[2 people being faced the death penalty]. It will be highly appreciated.

Respectfully

 

capt_ayhab [-YT]


varjavand

Capt_ayhab

by varjavand on

Here are three translations of the Verse 34, Surah 4 (Annessa)concerning the controversial issue of wife beating. I believe the author of this book (reviewed here) has shed some convincing light on this issue in her book, see pages 162 to 166.

wife beating.

004.034
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.


varjavand

Dear Readers; 

by varjavand on

Dear Readers;  I have received some comments from a few readers who do not want to post them online for some reasons. Based on these comments, I would like to make a couple of clarifications:

1. Muslims believe that Quran was preserved in oral as well written forms during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad by the Sahaba, the companions of Prophet. Therefore, a version of Quran did exist in his lifetime. After many years of his death, eventually, all the texts were collected and put together in form of a book, the official version of Quran, by Othamn. 

2. There is also no outright prohibition of “translating the Qur’an”. It can be translated. However, there is a caveat that the translation must go together with the Arabic text. Right now, two Afghan men face death penalty in Afghanistan for translating Quran into one of the Afghanistan languages without including its Arabic Verses alongside the translations.    Varjavand

 


capt_ayhab

Ari

by capt_ayhab on

I truely appreciate you. 

have a wonderful day

capt_ayhab [-YT]


Ari Siletz

capt_ayhab

by Ari Siletz on

 Regarding equal punishment, there are a couple of verses in Sura Al-Nur, though I don't know if these are the ones you have in mind.

 24-4: "And those who accuse free women and bring not four witnesses, flog them (with) eighty stripes and never accept their evidence, and these are transgressors."

24-6 is interesting (as well as touchingly humorous) because it shows that the intent of 24-4 is not merely to save the woman's husband's honor: "And those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, let one of them testify four times bearing Allah to witness that he is of those who speak the truth. And the fifth time that the curse of Allah be on him if he is of those who lies." Here's the interesting part:  "And it shall avert chastisement for her, if she testiy four times bearing Allah to witness that he is of those who lie. And the fifth time that the wrath of Allah to be on her, if he is of those who speaks the truth."

Basically he has to take her word for it, and defer judgement to Allah! Scaling this liberal attitude to modern proportions may make even some modern husbands uncomfortable.

Needless to add there are other verses where inequality can be strongly inferred. But Peace is a higher calling than literary debate.


capt_ayhab

Ari

by capt_ayhab on

Excellent observation. 

On the subject of alleged[beating] of wife by husband in case of grave misconduct, I am certain I have seen the same punishment for men as well as women, however due to lack of time I can't seem to find the verse.

Could you kindly help me? I might have seen it in Baghra or Nesa.

Respectfully

capt_ayhab [-YT]


Ari Siletz

varjavand

by Ari Siletz on

 There is no explicit reference to a woman’s right to divorce in 2:228 . There is another verse where the implication of equality in divorce is stronger. In 4:35  (The Women) it says,“And if you fear a breach between the two, appoint an arbiter from his people and an arbiter from her people. If they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them.” Note, the woman (or at least her side) is given the right not to agree. This verse can be a good basis for constructing Islamic laws that are fairer in divorce cases. The pressure for modernization combined with the reality that Islam is unlikely to go away, makes us search urgently for emancipating interpretations of the Koran. Of course, 4:34 does not imply a woman’s right to initiate a divorce, but neither is the right contradicted. Placing too heavy a burden of proof on the Koran works against women who desire the freedom to be Muslims ,and at the same time strive to be free citizens of Muslim nations.    

capt_ayhab

Mr. Varjavand

by capt_ayhab on

Firstly, My apologies for my blonder, calling you Ms. was not meant as an insult.

secondly, I do agree with the author regarding the philosophical meaning of hijab. Hijab, in one form or another is recommended for both genders. My understanding has always been, the reference to Hijab in Qur'an is rather a spiritual reference as opposed to a physical mandate.

It professes modesty in heart and soul, and not a head gear per se.

As a footnote, Chadoor as we see today, predate Islam and most other religions. 

[Fadwa El Guindi, in her book on the history of hijab, locates the origin of the Persian custom in ancient Mesopotamia, where respectable women veiled, and servants and prostitutes were forbidden to do so. The veil marked class status, and this dress code was regulated by sumptuary laws.

This custom seems to have been adopted by the Persian Achaemenid rulers, who are said by the Graeco-Roman historian Plutarch to have hidden their wives and concubines from the public gaze.

The barbarous nations, and amongst them the Persians especially, are extremely jealous, severe, and suspicious about their women, not only their wives (hai gamētai), but also their bought slaves and concubines (pallakai), whom they keep so strictly that no one sees them abroad; they spend their lives shut up within doors (oikoi) and when they take a journey, are carried in closed tents, curtained on all sides, and set upon a wagon (harmamaxai).
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadoor#History_of_Ir...

Respectfully

 

capt_ayhab [-YT]


varjavand

Dear Ari;  

by varjavand on

Dear Ari;

 

Thanks for misspelling my name in a positive way. Below are three versions of the translation of verse 228, Surah 2. Can you see any explicit reference to women’s right to divorce her husband?

YUSUFALI: Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
PICKTHAL: Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.
SHAKIR: And the divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they should conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the last day; and their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation; and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner, and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.


Ari Siletz

varjavand

by Ari Siletz on

No worries, and sorry for my typo of your screen name in my first comment. Maybe it was a Freudian contraction of "varjavand jan." The English translation of the Koran by Maulana Muhammad Ali was first done in 1917, and revised in the fourth edition in 1951. I don't have access to the 1917 edition. It would be interesting to see if he made the same "feminist" commentary in the first edition. At any rate, it does show that some Muslim scholars have used the Koran to push progressive policies. The particular instantiation of Islam by the IRI need not be taken as the final word by those who wish to practice the religion in modern times.

 


varjavand

To capt_ayhab

by varjavand on

First of all I am not a woman.

 

Second, It seems that the author suggests that Hijab serves as a deterrent, thus preventing women from paying attention to their body. She says “distancing ourselves from our debilitating fixation on body image would certainly be a good thing”  And I surmise from her earlier discussion that this good thing is one of the benefits of Hijab. However, the case of Tehran being the nose-job capital of the world proves that it may not be so.

 

Varjavand  

 


varjavand

Mr. Siletz

by varjavand on

 

Thanks for catching the error. I accidentally checked the third Sourah which has only 200 Verses. However,  my point is still valid. There is nothing in Verse 228, Sourah 2 that implies equal divorce right for women. I am of course reading the Farsi translation.

Thanks to you and my apology to the author.

Varjavand

 


Ari Siletz

Varjanvand

by Ari Siletz on

Thank you for the critical review. It encourages me to read the book. By Surah 2 the author probably means the Surah "The Cow"  (no pun intended, I'm sure) which says,"...and women have rights against them [husbands] in a just manner." In the fifth edition of his English translation of the Koran, Maulana Muhammad Ali annotates this verse with the following commentary: "The rights of women against their husbands are here stated to be similar to those which the husbands have against their wives...The woman could no longer be discarded at the will of her 'lord,' but she could either claim equality as a wife or demand a divorce."

capt_ayhab

Ms. varjavand

by capt_ayhab on

you say [The author continues to say, “The hijab sends the message that the appearance and body image do not equal the sum total of our worth as human beings.” For her information, in Tehran, the capital of the
Islamic Republic of Iran and a city of more than ten million Muslim inhabitants, veiling is mandatory. Tehran also has earned the dubious distinction of being the “nose-job capital of the world.” Veiling, therefore, has not prevented millions of women living in Tehran from being fascinated with and concerned about their body image.....]

Perhaps it is my ignorance of not following you. But what is it are you trying to say? 

What is the relevance between what Qur'an says regarding [Hijab] and women/men who, because of VANITY, or even lack of self-confidence seek to change their appearance?

Biologically speaking, In a species that reproduces sexually, sexual attraction is an attraction, usually, to other members of the same species for sexual or erotic activity. This type of attraction often occurs amongst individuals of a sexually-reproducing species

Much of human sexual attractiveness is governed by physical attractiveness. This involves the impact one's appearance has on the senses, especially in the beginning of a relationship:

1. Visual perception (how the other looks and acts);

2. Audition (how the others voice and/or movements sound).

3. Olfaction (how the other smells, naturally or artificially; the wrong smell may be repellent);

Some of the extend many women take when trying to attract men is  focusing too much on their appearance. They become so obsessed
about how they look that either go overboard on cosmetic enhancements, alteration of their physical appearance, i.g. nose job, breast augmentation even [right] outfit.

I mind you that same applies to men, although in lesser extent. Now if you couple this biological NEED to procreate, with obvious suppression of women in the entire world, particularly in a country such as Iran then you have the end result of Tehran being Nose Job Capital of the world.

Women have lot more to offer to a society as a whole, other than being a child bearers, and pro-creators. I am an avid opponent of [hijab] as it is being used in Iran, which is mandatory use of head scarf. But I do believe  in Hijab, in the context of ones individuality, education, wisdom, and true self, as opposed to ones uses of her/his appearance as his/her only asset.

Plastic alteration of face has become a fashion statement in Iran. As it is in rest of the world, but not as severe as Iran I might say. Our pursuit of [ultimate beauty] is the driving force behind these operations, as opposed ot teaching of Islam about Hijab.

 

capt_ayhab [-YT]


varjavand

Mr. Kadivar

by varjavand on

Mr. Kadivar;

 

I watch both video clips you posted, even though they are interesting, I did not understand their relevance to this book or to this book review

Varjavand

 


Darius Kadivar

FYI/FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Riz Khan - Queen Noor Al Jazeera

by Darius Kadivar on

Riz Khan - Queen Noor - 4 Feb 09 - Part 1

Riz Khan - Queen Noor - 4 Feb 09 - Part 2


default

Varjavand

by rockstar (not verified) on

This was a fantastic review. Your work is always appreciated. Keep it coming.


default

Who is at fault

by Mensa (not verified) on

I truly believe that the current state of the Middle East and in particular Iran is not due to the practices of the fundementalist but rather the repetitive justification of the so-called liberal modern islamic apologists. Like any addiction or psychological delusion the very first step is to admit.... rather than deny. These individuals try as hard as they can to deny the truth behind this religion... this bankrupt, backward philosophy.
From the Sharia.... all the way to the quaranic verses, the religion is rooted in violence, hate, chauvanism, and all the other characteristics that you might have seen in a shepard turned trader in the 7th century Arabian desert.... the book is a reflection of the man... enough said. those who justify it and try to apologize for it are the cause of its continuation and profound state of corruption.


varjavand

Ms. Hojjat

by varjavand on

You cannot make a sound judgment about a book unless you read it carefully. Since, I guess, you have not read this book, your blanket refutation in fact does not have any merit.

Thanks for your comment though

Varjavand

 


Maryam Hojjat

Not good enough for me

by Maryam Hojjat on

Thank you for review.  But the writer seems like most proud moslem to defend Qouranic verses which are nothing more than BS. 

I personally after your review do not waste my money on this book.

Payandeh IRAN 


varjavand

To the readers   I have

by varjavand on

To the readers

 

I have to make a correction; the third successor to the Prophet Muhammad was Othman, not Abu Bakr as stated in the article 

Sorry for the oversight

Varjavand