Title: A meeting with M.

Sajjad Nomani,
Introduction: What? So What? Stake? MAIN CLAIM=what youre going to tell
I was recently blessed with the opportunity of having a personal meeting with an illustrious scholar
and visionary of our time, Maulana Sajjad Nomani, S/O Maulana Manzur Nomani, Senior Member of
All India Muslim Personal Law Board. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the current situation
of India, the condition of Indian Muslims and the way forward. Although the meeting was scheduled
for 10 minutes only, Maulana was kind enough to give me an hour. In the following paragraphs, I
would like to summarize some of the gems that I collected from that meeting.

What is the evidence for the existence of God? Was the consummation of Prophet’s (saw) marriage
with Aisha at 9 moral? List of questions and objections ad infinitum…

As Muslims, we are inundated with such questions from non-Muslims, ex-Muslims and even many
liberal Muslims today. In defence, we often start addressing the questions instantaneously based on
what we know - using deductive arguments, scientific arguments, etc. However, we are seldom
successful in convincing and find that the volley of questions and counterarguments continues
endlessly. One strategy, when faced with such questions, would be to take a step back and agree on
the rules of the game, the type of reasoning the detractor will engage in and the kind of evidence that
he will find acceptable.
Often, we find that we talk at length about the deductive proofs for God and in the end, the critic says,
“Show me where God is!”, displaying his empiricist epistemology where he claims to only believe in
things he can perceive using the five senses. To address such people, usage of deductive logic or any
other kind of reasoning would be futile.

In such a case, the first step should be to deconstruct the empiricist epistemology and show its
limitations, explaining how, despite being valuable, it cannot answer metaphysical questions because
they are beyond the scope of empiricism or science. Once a discussion takes place and the detractor
agrees to use another form of reasoning such as deduction, we will be in a better position to discuss
the issue based on rules agreed by both players of the game. There are more chances of a fruitful
discussion (and game) if both parties agree on the rules.

Practically, when you do the deconstruction discussion, you will find that 90% of the critics (most
atheists) will reject the rules of logic/deduction and choose to quit the game because of their belief in
scientism (seeing is believing). You will save a lot of time and efforts through this deconstruction.
P.S. Even if they agree on the rules, there is no guarantee that they will accept because guidance is
ultimately from Allah (swt).

irst, Zaira Wasim passed a moral judgement on all the Muslim actors and actresses in the movie
industry of being "diseased" with lust, desire, doubt and error. This holier-than-thou attitude is a
direct attack on the handful of progressive voices from Muslim community in the industry serving the
art of cinema as well as the country.

It is okay to make moral judgements on actions based on revelation. As Muslims, we are not moral
nihilists but submitters to the will of God. Because we have a divine code that delineates for us the
right and the wrong, we are in a position to make normative claims about good and evil. We can pass
moral judgements on actions based on revelation and act in accordance with it.

God commands in numerous places (for example, 3:104) in the Quran to command good and forbid
evil, an impossibility without judging actions. In fact, the Quran talks about the accursed people who
did not use to judge evil (munkar) actions and enjoin each other to forbid from them (5:78).
Numerous ahadith talk about changing munkar physically and verbally.

We need to understand that good and bad are defined relative to the purpose they serve. A good car is
one that takes a person from point A to point B while a bad car is one that does not do so. Serving
purpose is the criteria for good and bad. And this criteria comes from the owner of the thing/being.
Since Muslims believe that everything is owned, controlled and sustained by God and that He

The comment above assumes the acceptance of Quran as the source of moral knowledge. None of the
above will make sense for someone with a different moral epistemic framework.

Goldn rul=treat ppl basd on who thos ppl r=crimnals lyk crmnls. hw do v knw hw v shd b tretd? Nvr thnk gheebh is bad. I luv junk
food n TV, treat othrs hw wnt to be treatd. Slf wrshp. Allah hs detrmnd gud fr us. That v wsh fr othrs. Dsnt prvd ethcl decsns. Hw
to treat parents?
I underscored how my comment would not be acceptable to someone who has a different epistemic framework. Now, that you
have clarified that you are a humanist and no longer accept Quran as a source of morality, we would need to have a different
discussion. I would respond to those who have maintained decorum and refrained from ad hominem attacks.
Firstly, you have not expressed your understanding of the nature of morality – whether subjective or objective, fixed or changing.
Objective means that morality is not based on one’s mind or personal feelings whereas subjective means it is based on personal
opinion or feelings. This distinction would be beneficial for the discussion.
Coming to your point about rational empathy and reciprocity, I would assert that, though it ostensibly looks like a sound basis for
morality, it is frail for numerous reasons:
Firstly, your view of morality is very limited and narrow in that it only requires an individual to not harm others and does not offer
any guidance for engaging in positive behavior. It only provides some guidance about what should *not* be done but does not
say anything about what *should* be done. A sound moral framework should provide guidance about both positive and negative
aspects of morality – the do’s and the don’ts. Your morality would forbid you to steal or murder or commit any other harm to
others but will not tell you what *to do* to and for others.
Secondly, your view of morality would lead to contradictions when you practically try to implement your formula, “I would not do
anything to anyone that I do not wish to be done unto me.” Suppose you are witnessing a crime taking place in front of you. Your
moral compass does not offer any guidance on what to do in that situation. Also, consider a policeman or an army-man who is
fighting an enemy or a criminal, should he hit him/her or no? If you decide to hit a criminal or an enemy, does it mean you are
doing something that you do not want to be done to you? Are you not contradicting yourself?
Thirdly, your view of morality is self-centered, focusing on what *you* desire and disregards the preferences of others. It does not
offer any guidance about how to organize a harmonious compassionate society. You are nothing but a product of your DNA and
environment. What you as a limited contingent individual do not want for yourself is not a basis for defining morality in any
reasonable terms.
As for the point about your Quranic studies, God tells that only the pious benefit from the Quran and it misguides the defiantly
disobedient people. As regards your point about slaves, that is a separate topic that we can discuss at another time. I am
interested in discussing “passing judgement” and issues of metaethics here.

Education?

Would a liberal send their children to an Islamic school taught by Muslim teachers using an Islamic
curriculum? Why do Muslims send their children to a school that teaches the opposite of what they
believe? Muslims would never send their children to an RSS shakha or a Christian school but many
Muslim parents have no problem with the typical private/public school. Why?

The reason is that falsity of and disagreements with Christian and Hindu beliefs/worldview are clear
to us and we want to protect our children from them. On the contrary, most of us consider secular-
liberalism and modern education (and schools) to be ideologically neutral, which is not true.
The reality is that the education that is imparted in most schools today is based on certain
philosophies, presuppositions and concepts. Those toxic concepts such as naturalism, progress, utility
maximization, freedom, etc. are taught for more than 15 years to credulous impressionable children,
permanently distorting the way they view the world. I will touch on a few of the numerous concepts
that the modern "education" imparts us.

Science makes us believe that the physical world is all that exists, and all phenomenon can and must
be explained through physical causes only. This blatantly undermines the belief in the supernatural
and, thus, weakens imaan, which by definition is on the ghayb, the unseen, the supernatural.

History promotes the idea of progress: mankind as a whole is progressing and becoming more
rational, moral and advanced over time, pushing the idea of "the newer the better". This gives a false
impression that the moderns are more advanced, moral and rational than the previous people and,
thus, Islam of the 7th century is outdated and needs revision.

Economics promotes the idea that self-interested rational man, homo economicus, is in a state of
competition due to a scarcity of resources and, thus, he tries to maximize his pleasure (utility) from
consumption of goods and services. This strikes at the root of compassion, selflessness, sacrifice and
caring for the rights of others that Islam stresses so much.

Many other such toxic ideas incongruous to Islam are taught to students through different subjects
over the school life. In the absence of hard work by parents to counter the influence of such toxic
ideas, it is not surprising to find a Muslim after decades of schooling (brainwashing) become a
naturalist, secular, careerist, progressive, etc.

We need to think seriously about what we are studying and imparting to our successive generations.
May Allah rectify our affairs.

Education we receive through the early stages of our lives shapes our way of thinking and is therefore of primary
importance. Most education that young Muslims receive today is secular. The minds of our youth today are shaped
by the secular education system where religion either plays no part, or plays a very marginal role.

Even the so called Islamic schools of today have been unable to provide a proper alternative to the secular
education system. When the Muslims coming out of colonial influence or the Muslims living in the West realized
the need for Islamic education for their young, their solution was to add on Islamic studies subjects to an otherwise
secular curriculum and call it an Islamic school. Most schools today continue to follow the same methodology
where Islamic education is taught separately from the secular education.

This separation of 'this-worldly' and 'that worldly‘ is the very essence of secularism itself. In Islam, the distinction
between the sciences of the world and the sciences of the religion is non-existent. For a Muslim, one’s whole life is
an act of worship to Allah. The separation of Islamic studies from the worldly studies, however, reinforces in the
young minds the idea of separation between the matters of the world and the matters of the religion. The Muslim
minds in their formative years are getting trained to view religion as a private and separate matter from the affairs
of the world.

Para1 Topic Sentence=single idea 100 words

Supporting Sentences
Support Facts, reasons, examples, personal
Main experiences
Claim

Para2 Topic Sentence

Supporting Sentences
Facts, reasons, examples, personal
experiences

Para3 Topic Sentence

Supporting Sentences
Facts, reasons, examples, personal
experiences

Para4 Topic Sentence

Supporting Sentences
Facts, reasons, examples, personal
experiences

Para5 Topic Sentence

Supporting Sentences
Facts, reasons, examples, personal
experiences
Final Reiterate the main claim
Para