An oft-repeated assertion in the Qur'an is that it is "guidance" [Hudan Lil Muttaqeen]. An even stronger expression found in the text tells us that it is "that which gives clarity to all things" [ Tibyaanan likulli shay'] ( Q 16:89) .
A sceptical reader may treat these assertions with caution or even ridicule, but for this writer, the more I engage with the Quranic scripture, the more I find these statements to be accurate.Indeed, one of the interesting things is that it is the only text I have ever engaged with and not had a moment of boredom. It gives us things to think about, to consider, even in the midst of some historical account.(ft.1)
The Qur'an is an ever-relevant Book, however it has to be read slowly, it has to be studied, we have to have patience with it. It cannot be treated in the way we treat other materials. It takes much work, particularly when one is not fluent enough to engage it in it's original language(ft.2).
For this post, we have not, unless otherwise stated, provided the English translation, only the references and the Arabic text. This will allow the reader to consult the translation of their choice.
Thinking about the first few verses of Soorah Al-Baqarah
[Q 2:1-5]
The Soorah, the longest of the Qur'an, begins with some mysterious letters, known as Al-Muqata'aat. Other chapters have the same formula or similar headings, and while some have advanced explanations, the general consensus is that God alone knows (in fact) the real meaning of these three letter initials. Ibn Katheer quotes in his Tafseer different views, among them is that these are attention getters. In other words, the fact that we don't automatically known or recognize what these three letters [Alif-Laam-Meem] signify or mean, it forces us to think about it. It grabs our attention because of it's novelty!
Although Ibn Katheer does not seem to accept that view, it is the view that is most convincing to me. The fact that it does begin with something not immediately knowable or recognizable does flow with the message which carries forth in the chapter, particularly in the opening words.
The qualities of those who are deemed aware of God [Muttaqeen], who benefit from this Scripture, is that they accept that there are realities that they cannot immediately see or know. This is called the Ghayb. They pray regularly, they pay in charity regularly, but all of that is prefaced by Alladheena yu'minoona bil Ghayb [Those who have faith in the unseen realities].
There are things we cannot immediately see or know, but that does not mean that they don't exist. It only means that our understanding is not at the level wherein we can see them. A scientist may analyse a micro-oganism, a cell, under a micrscope, yet such cannot be see with the naked eye. A tool or tools are required to see them.
It is under this premise that we have to accept some things which we cannot see. God cannot be physically seen. In addition to this, forces of good and evil, known as angels and demons respectively, cannot typically be seen, even though there existence is almost universally acknowledged.
This is the reality that we are to form a basis upon. The human mind has limitations, and should never be elevated to some divine status. Yes, we should think, ponder and even question, however we should, if we proclaim that we believe in Allah, be careful not to take it too far. Indeed, the Qur'an itself asserts: "Have you not observed the one who takes his whims [Hawaa] as his object of worship?Allah has made such most astray, upon his own knowledge [of that character's inner realities], placed a seal on his hearing, his heart, and has made on his vision a veil. So who will deliver him guidance after Allah? Will you not recollect?" ( Q 45:23)
The Qur'an is for those who accept as axiomatic truth that God has sent forth scriptures and Prophets, who are assured of deeper realities(ft.3], and are consquently, the objects of guidance and success.
Those who elevate their wrong thinking are the ones responsible for chaos
[Q 2:6-10]
It is important to read words in their context, because context often provides the proper or intended meaning. Here is a perfect example. The words Innal ladheena Kafarooo are usually translated as "Indeed, those who are disbelievers". The term "disbeliever" does not capture the full reality of Kufr. In these regards, Kaafir as presented in the Qur'an is something different than Kaafir as expressed in popular culture or even in the writings of the Fuqahaa.
The word Kaafir has to do with rejection, with hiding or denying, and even is connected with ingratitude. It is a deeply nuanced word, as well as the words which stem from Kufr. Notice here that they [Alladheena Kafaroo] don't accept God's message because they are blinded to those realities!
They are blinded because of their actions. They are blinded and- as the verses suggest- destined for hell, because they have waged war on what is right. They are driven by ambition and hubris, usually filled with hatred and envy, and produce nothing but destruction upon whatever it is they possession of.
They may even pretend, out of political considerations, to be Muslims! They may have our names and terminology, but their hearts are not really with Islam.
In short, such folks don't accept that Ghayb exists. They seek only power, glory and wealth, and, even then, it seems they would not be satisfied.
Their self-awareness is non-existent. "They seek to deceive Allah, and those who have 'imaan', yet they deceive only themselves and realize it not." ( Q 2:9)
2:10 in particular seems to show us that because of their own internal conditions, which they themselves are largely for creating, only becomes worse as time goes on. God allows it to happen, not for ideological or "religious" reasons, but because of their destructive intentions and wrong thinking.
Characteristists of rejection
[Q 2:11-16]
These types not only have a theological rejection of Allah's guidance, they spread chaos while proclaiming their 'wonderful intentions'. The modern era has seen this repeatedly, and is known widely by terms such as "white man's burden". Invasions are staged in order to "spread democracy and freedom". Slavery was a wonderful institution because it "civilized Africans" or brought them to Christianity, etc.
These types have no self-awareness, they are arrogant, narcissistic, and view themselves as extremly clever. Sometimes they even pretend to be believers, and this actually seems to be a historical pattern. The Qur'an speaks of hypocrites in Prophet Muhammad's time, even in his presence (Q 63:1-3) proclaiming one thing and believing another.
They go whereever the wind of politics blow. They seemingly have no true or firm principles. They have devilish companionship (shayateenihim) and God promises that they don't get away with their evil deeds for long.
The sad thing is expressed in verses 16, 18 and 20 is that they had oppurtunities to be guided to God's light. They were exposed to it, they are exposed to it and to God's messenger, in this case Prophet Muhammad- The final Prophet- peace and blessings be upon him. Yet, they squander and continue to squander away those oppurtunities.
What should we get from these verses?
The first thing we should seek from these verses is to do serious introspection. Are we firm as to what we are to accept and what we are to reject as Muslims? While I do mean theologically, yet arguably more importantly in our perception of self and perception of life. Do we have proper thinking?
How are our characteristics? We should be working on the development of better characteristics.
One of the Prophet's supplications is "O Allah, I seek refuge with you from bad characteristics, deeds, passions and diseases"
اللهم جنبني منكرات الأخلاق و الاعمال و الاهواء والادواء
Another well known supplication from that era is "O Allah, show us truth as truth, and give us the ability to follow it, and show us falsehood as falsehood, and give us the ability to abstain therefrom"
للهم ارنا الحق حقاً و ارزقنا اتباعه وأرنا الباطل باطلاً وارزقنا اجتنابه
The characteristics of spreading destruction on a great and even global scale, arrogance, self-delusions and the like, are characteristics of those with spiritual diseases.
To put it another way, these verses have shown us that Kaafir as a Quranic term is synonymous with Mufsid [one who spreads destruction], Munaafiq [hypocrite], and a host of other negative attributes, and should not simply be read with the theologically loaded term "disbeliever".
If we have these diseases, we need to work on getting cure. If our surroundings, the people and environment around us, are filled with those with incorrect thinking and the propagators thereof, with toxic personalities and insincere elements, it is best to step back from such types.
"And when you see them, their exteriors please you. and when they speak, you listen to their speech, they are like pieces of wood, dressed up, reckoning that every call is against them. They are (in fact) your enemy, so avoid them..and when it is said to them 'come, God's Messenger will seek forgiveness/protection for you, they turn their heads, and you see them hindering (others from the path of Allah), and they are arrogant." ( Q 63:4-5)
Your peace of mind, conscious and sense of security, both physical and spiritual, are to take precedent. As believers we have to be conscious of these things and try as much as possible to stay as Muslims, conforming in mind, body and spirit, to the Qur'an and Sunnah.
May Allah protect us and may He guide us to do just that.
Footnotes
[1] One example of this is Soorah Yusuf. While telling us a story about the life of Joseph, it says that the story itself contains guidance for those who are seeking (12:7). In other words, there are morals and lessons behind the story, and not simply a narration of facts.
[2] This is not to say that nothing can be gained from reading a translation, or that someone understadning classical Arabic will get all there is to gain. There are a number of good translations of the Qur'an now available in English (and indeed, in many other tongues) and we encourage utilizing those resources. We are simply attempting to emphasis that the text in the original language contains much more than is able to be conveyed with a translation. The Quranic language in particular is very rich in meaning, nunances and subtleties.
[3] The text wa bil Aakhirati hum yuuqenoon. I have rendered "Al-Aakhirah" as "deeper realities" rather than "the hereafter" because [a] The hereafter belongs to the ghayb, which is already covered in the previous sentence, this is acknowledged universally by the Mufassireen. [b] In context, it suggests that Qur'anic emphasis on thinking properly and spiritual exercise allows the believer to see or judge beyond shallowness. In other words, Al-Aakirah here is speaking to the Baatini realities. This is more apparent in Q 30:7. There ( starting from 30:1 and ending with 30:10) it speaks of a quarrel between two superpowers, one seemingly defeated eternally, but it seemed so to those who judge on a superficial level. In 30:7, the word "Al-Aakhirah" clearly refers to those deeper realities, contrasting to superficialness.
77 comments:
Hello Waheed. I hope you are well.
Once again, I feel that your are being unfairly critical of people who think the way I do. Just because I do not believe what you do does not imply in any way the conclusions that you are attempting to draw.
However, let's begin on a positive note and identify a few things that you say which I cannot disagree with:
1. There are realities that we cannot immediately see or know.
2. The existence of good and evil is almost universally accepted.
3. The human mind has limitations.
4. Those who elevate their wrong thinking are the ones responsible for chaos.
However, you also make some follow-on assertions that I cannot agree with:
It is an "axiomatic truth" that God has sent forth scriptures and Prophets, who are assured of deeper realities, and are consequently, the objects of guidance and success.
It's an interesting use of the word "axiomatic", implying that the idea is so self-evident that no one doubts its truth. However, nothing could be further from the truth in the case of your statement. The vast majority of people do not accept as truth that Muhammad was a Prophet of God and that he is an object of guidance and success.
Speaking as a trained mathematician, I would describe your statement as a "postulate". It is useful to postulate certain ideas as "truths" and then to examine where these ideas lead us. You would also look at the differences between your understanding of a world where the postulates are true and one where they are not. You would then conclude, using logic, whether the postulates helps us to explain the world or whether they actually hinder our comprehension of the world. You would eliminate those postulates that are not helpful.
For example, you postulate the existence of angels and demons. You also postulate the existence of an All-Seeing, All-Powerful God. Now, I ask you, what need does such a God have of angels and demons, when He has the power to will, without intermediaries, whatever these angels and demons might accomplish for him? You can forget about angels and demons, achieving a less complicated theology, without any loss of comprehension.
So, by the same logic, what need is there of Prophets and a Holy book? Once you postulate the existence of an All-Powerful God, you have postulated the means to guide any person at any time. Where is the need for an intermediary and a frozen-in-time book to pass on this guidance?
The logical conclusion is that if you accept as truth that there is a God with the attributes that you describe, then that God is guiding all of us all of the time. Those people who claim otherwise are contradicting the very nature of the God that you believe in. If I accepted your postulate of the existence of this God, they I would be forced to consider any claim of knowledge of the unseen or unknowable as a blasphemy. ... 1/2
They are blinded and- as the verses suggest- destined for hell, because they have waged war on what is right. They are driven by ambition and hubris, usually filled with hatred and envy, and produce nothing but destruction upon whatever it is they possession of.
I agree with you that the cause of much evil is that people are blind to what is right or that they selfishly choose to wage war on what is right. You are correct that if you could convince everyone that they will be judged, in a very literal way, then people would be fearful and would be motivated to seek what is right. However, just as children figure out that there is no Santa Claus, people continue to reject the idea of divine retribution. Your approach hasn't worked; nor has the Christian approach worked. So, we need to try something else.
In the meantime, please refrain from your accusations against those of us who reject your approach. We are not all driven by ambition and hubris, filled with hatred and envy, and we don't all produce nothing but destruction. We do not all seek only power, glory and wealth and we do not all lack self-awareness. Arrogant, narcissistic and viewing themselves as extremely clever is far more common amongst the Muslim posters in the whyislam forums than amongst the non-Muslim posters, and yet it goes unchallenged by the few more reasonable Muslim posters.
I agree with you that introspection of our perception of self and of life is important. We need to understand what we assume to be truths, what we accept as right and what we reject as wrong. Trying to follow a particular religion is no protection from misconceptions in any of these. We can learn from a wide variety of sources, both religious and secular. Religious people are just as capable of spreading destruction and being victims of arrogance, self-delusion and the like, and being spiritually diseased.
No, we need more open-mindedness in our introspection, not less; broader perspectives, not narrower; freedom from religious preconceptions. 2/2
Hello N.B.
I hope you are doing well, and welcome back to the blog. Certainly I have some thoughts on your reactions to this post, and share them below for your consideration.
(1) While it is true that the majority of the world is not Muslim, it is true that the majority of people in the world believe that God or something relating to Divinity exists and has sent forth teachers or even scriptures, to deliver guidance. In fact, rejection of this teaching ( such as in atheism and it's distant ideological cousin agnosticism) are numerically speaking small. Indeed, the imposition of anti-religion or even anti-God teachings, such as what happened during the existence of the Soviet Union, and communism in general in Non-USSR nations such as Albania and Yugoslavia, was reversed very quickly when that ideology lost its political power. In the former soviet nations, as well as in Albania and other places, the belief in God and religious practices based on that returned, with a resurgence of both Christianity, Islam, and even new religious movements seeking converts in these places. So I feel justified in saying that as a principle, revelation is seen as an axiomatic truth, the only difference being is disagreements on the nature as well as the characters involved in that process.
(2) You ask some very important questions about angels, demons, and the need for book[s] and Prophets. These are also largely universally accepted, even though disagreement exists about the details. That should tell us something. As far as angels, I understand angels to be, in essence, agents to carry out certain functions. That does not mean that the image we have, of flying figures with white wings, is necessarily correct, only that "angel" is the designation we give to that which carries out certain functions. In a similar way, "demons" belongs to the realm of what we call the occult, and is, likewise, largely in the classification of things we cannot immediately see, known as the Ghayb in Muslim parlance.
(3) From an Islamic perspective, God exists outside of our abilities to grasp fully. Meaning, we can't physically see God, and the reality of God is beyond our reach to perceive. Thus, God sends forth Prophets and scripture to preserve the broad teachings and ethical considerations. In terms of the Qur'an as a scripture, one unique aspect of it is that it works in any place and time, and has very little culturally or time-specific contents.
{4} You mention in your second post that fear of Divine retribution has not worked, in terms of stopping people from doing oppression and the like. I'm not sure I totally agree with that, I would actually argue that lack of genuine fear of God, even from individuals which emerge from a religious community, is what is responsible for great crimes that we see both in the present and past. I agree that crimes have been done in the name of religion and even by sincere advocates of religion, however that is serious examples of misguidance, and such can happen [and does happen] even with those who are not religiously committed.
[5] What I attempted to convey in this [and other posts] is that the Qur'anic term "Kaafir" [and derivatives such as Kufr] is much more than the term "disbeliever" [in the sense that someone belongs to another religion as opposed to belonging to the Islamic religion]. The Qur'an uses the term in much bigger way, it uses it in connection to those who are doing great crimes upon the earth. It maybe prudent to publish an essay on the subject [for a book project years ago I actually did research into each place Qur'an mentions Kufr and words from that and found the system of meaning that places it as I am explaining now]. I think that when you see "Kaafir" in the Qur'an, you should try to remember what I am mentioning here.
You did seem to get the message of the article, that we need to be open to truth, of not only the world or of religious truths, but the truth of ourselves, and engage in introspection. Regards, S.Waheed
Hello, Waheed and thank you for taking the time to respond to me.
While we agree on the importance of introspection, you don't seem to be willing to admit that religious preconceptions can be a hinderance to proper thinking. I can admit that I am not without my own preconceptions, but I strive to recognize what those preconceptions are and I also welcome it when others point them out to me. When you use a phrase like "axiomatic truth", you are surrendering to your preconceptions.
Do not make the mistake of dividing the world along theist/atheist lines. My "atheism" is relative to the God-concept that is being proposed. By no means am I able to say that there is no concept of God that could resonate with me. In the context of talking to you, a Muslim, I am simply asserting that I do not believe in Islamic theology. In this regard, Christians and I have far more in common than differences. In the context of this blog thread, non-Muslims, whether theist or atheist, reject the Quranic preconceptions that you are using to find "proper thinking" and, instead, seek other ways to find truth.
You mention how widespread belief in God is. However, you have to admit that the God-concept varies greatly between different people. The God-concept is very much part of a culture; within a cultural group, the concept will generally be similar between individuals. How can this happen if there is an "axiomatic" concept of God? No, it can't happen. People are taught about God; my parents and teachers taught me about God. Within a culture, the concept of God is passed from person to person and each person has a similar concept. Go to a different culture, the concept can be quite different. Isn't it precisely your role as Imam, to teach your cultural group your culture's way of seeing God? Don't you measure your success as Imam by how effectively you are able to communicate Islamic thinking to others?
Belief in God is something that is taught to children from a very early age. We need to be vigilant about what we teach these impressionable young minds! These are preconceptions which they may live with for their entire lives. Religious teaching like this might be beneficial or it might be harmful. Teaching children that people whose beliefs are different from theirs are "Deaf, dumb and blind" [Q 2:18] is about as harmful as any teaching can be... and I don't think that today's children are capable of understanding the nuance that you mention nor were the Madinans who first heard these words so many years ago. Doesn't the Qur'an say that it is simple and clear? Then we must expect the mass of followers to take its simplest and clearest meaning.
I'm sorry if some of this comes across as overly harsh. My goal is to have a conversation with you without so many preconditions.
Hello Waheed. Further to my above comment, a year ago or so, when I made the decision to learn more about Islam, I never expected to come away with such a negative view. I began with chapter 1 and found praise for the Creator and a prayer for rightful guidance. No problem there. Then I began reading chapter 2 and I get to 2:4 and discover that the Qur'an does not provide guidance for those who do not believe in what was revealed to Muhammad or do not have faith in the Hereafter. In 2:7, I'm told that Allah has set a seal upon my heart and a veil over my vision. This isn't going well, is it? But you believe these things and you believe that these words are "axiomatic" truths and never changeable. Where is there for me to go in my thinking about Islam?
Your frame of reference is clear when you write: "Your peace of mind, conscious [you mean "conscience", I think] and sense of security, both physical and spiritual, are to take precedent. As believers we have to be conscious of these things and try as much as possible to stay as Muslims, conforming in mind, body and spirit, to the Qur'an and Sunnah."
"As believers"? Why only believers? Haven't all people wrestled with with these things? Doesn't every major culture have books and traditions to teach their people how to address these?
"Stay as Muslims"? Really, that's the only answer? Why not acknowledge the many ways that a person can choose to better connect spiritually? Why limit to the "Qur'an and Sunnah"?
The reason I bring this up, and I apologize, I bring it up frequently, is that I see this manner of thinking to be divisive in a world that is already far too divided. The Qur'anic text that is the subject of this blog post is deliberately divisive, spoken at a time when Muhammad needed to create a separation between his followers and his opponents.
I continued to read. As you've mentioned, this is the longest Soorah of the Qur'an. It is full of allegations of wrongdoing by the Children of Israel. Even if there was any substance to the allegations, why would Muhammad "recite" all of these antisemitic verses? The allegations are historic wrongs; they couldn't ever be the fault of the Madinan Jews and raising them could have only one affect... to drive a wedge between his followers and the Jews, who just happened to be a powerful force in Madina at that time.
OK. So your view is that these are not the words of Muhammad but are the words of Allah himself. How can you explain Allah's will? Of course you can't. You can only shrug and say that "Only Allah knows".
So I ask you, which is more credible: these are the words of Allah or these are the words of a politician seeking to increase his power in the region? Is there anything you can say to contradict my view that this Soorah is exactly what a leader would say to rally his followers against his opponents?
Hello N.B.
I hope this reply finds you well. I have been very busy with other things, and am just now getting an opportunity to return to the blog to share some thoughts. In particular, I would like to zoom in on some key points/ quotations that you mentioned in your comments above. Thus, I will attempt to do so in an organized fashion.
" Religious preconceptions can be a hindrance to proper thinking"
I can see why you would say that, in the sense that fanaticism or being so closed minded as to become blind are often traits associated with religious people.
In the case of the Qur'an, it is mostly a book of laws that are intertwined with moral exhortations, often themselves married into historical accounts. Indeed, the Qur'an calls itself a guide "for a thinking people" and is critical of those who follow traditional ways blindly, who act without thinking, who have not studied past generations or fallen civilizations.
I would say that the Qur'anic guidelines for ethical behavior, such as what is found in places such as Soorah 49, Soorah 24, Soorah 17 and other places, as well as its prohibitions of intoxicants, gambling and other practices, are given precisely in order to remove impediments to proper thinking.
All of the above has been stated in order to state that simply having a religious foundation does not automatically equate being closed-minded or fanatical.
"People have different ideas about God concept"
This is true, but it does not negate the point in the original post, indeed, it only gives more strength to it's argument.
WE have different religions and theologies on this Earth, yet all of them acknowledge the Divine at some level.
"Qur'an does not guide those who don't believe in the hereafter"
What we have attempted to convey is that the Qur'an places Kufr alongside other traits, such as oppression and the like. In other words, it's not simply an issue of an intellectual or theological mistake. I would suggest reading again the context of the first 25 or thirty verses of Soorah Al Baqarah.
"Why does Muhammad recite Anti-semitic verses"
These verses are NOT anti-semitic. The Qur'an, from the Islamic perspective, is from God, and seeks to have its readers avoid making the same mistakes made by other communities. You can also find positive statements made about both Jews and Christians in the Qur'an.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to me, Waheed.
Religious preconceptions
When I mention religious preconceptions, one thing I'm referring to is the notion that scientific research can be heretical. Science and intellectual development was stifled in the West for centuries. Intellectual works by people like Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin were suppressed. This was not an environment of "proper thinking". Even today, especially in the USA, the teaching of our children is being affected by outspoken religious leaders.
There are other areas where religious preconceptions are affecting our progress when careful study based on evidence and real experience should be our guide. Persecution of homosexuals and opposition to equal rights for women are two examples.
Another complex issue that we must grapple with without burdening ourselves with out-dated religious principles is the issue of medical assistance in dying. Now that we have the technology to keep a body alive long after it would have naturally died, we must establish new ethical principles related to the preservation of life. This is not a simple issue; not at all, but it is entirely unhelpful to depend on books that were written many centuries ago by people who could not anticipate this situation.
Antisemitism
I read the Qur'an from a consistent perspective of trying to understand how the people who heard these verses for the very first time would react to them.
From that perspective, how would Muhammad's followers have reacted to hearing Soorah Al Baqarah? How would the Jews of Madinah have reacted? What was goal, Muhammad's or Allah's, in speaking these words?
There are many verses that I could point to, but let's look at 2:87 "... But is it [not] that every time a messenger came to you, [O Children of Israel], with what your souls did not desire, you were arrogant? And a party [of messengers] you denied and another party you killed."
Is the message to the people of the day not clear? If the Jews reject the prophethood of Muhammad, they may kill him. It's a terrifying verse, if you're Jewish, since you are being cast as a prophet killer based on an historical incident which may or may not have taken place centuries before. There is no way for a Jew to defend himself against an accusation like this. The view that, given the chance, the Jews would murder Muhammad persists to this day.
Can you show me positive statements about Jews that were recited after this Soorah?
Proper thinking
You mention Soorahs 49, 24, and 17. Once again, I would like to point out the difference in tone in Soorah 17, recited before Muhammad had power, and Soorah 49 and 24, recited after. 49:14 is particular noteworthy from the point-of-view of a contemporaneous listener: The bedouins say, "We have believed." Say, "You have not [yet] believed; but say [instead], 'We have submitted,' for faith has not yet entered your hearts. And if you obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not deprive you from your deeds of anything. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."
--> A bedouin would hear this as: If you obey Muhammad, he will not deprive you from your deeds of anything. Muhammad will overlook your disbelief as long as you submit.
By the way, the very definition of "Religious preconceptions" in Islam is provided in a post today on whyislam. I can't say whether this individual represents a mainstream view or not, but since no Muslim ever contradicts him, I must assume that this is not incongruent with what other Muslims believe. http://forum.whyislam.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=32449&PN=2
The tone of that man's posts are highly offensive. He has done more to shape my negative view of Islam than any other source. The whyislam administrator has done me a favour by preventing me from challenging him further.
Yes, Islam is scared of the truth. I was banned when no Muslim would answer my questions about the annihilation of a Jewish tribe in Medina. http://forum.whyislam.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=32365
Another thread on whyislam that is a huge failure is about the point of interfaith discussions. http://forum.whyislam.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=32448&PN=4
I too have wondered this. If the Muslim attitude is that everyone else should listen to them since they are in sole possession of "the Truth", then there is no point. Al-Cordoby tries valiantly but fails to make a case. And his comment "Do you really think that it would make a difference to its mighty Creator whether person A or person B believe or not?" is stunning. I actually agree with this. It wouldn't make a difference to a mighty Creator. Therefore, there would be no reason for a mighty Creator to send a prophet to Arabia and have that prophet declare himself to be the final prophet.
So if I'm going to believe in a God, shall I believe in a Christian God who loves and cares about all of his Creation, or the Muslim God who doesn't care if we believe of not, one who is vengeful and who has prepared a hideous torture for those he created who are unable to believe in this prophet?
Good Morning N.B.
Hopefully this reply finds you well. As you can imagine, I am distracted with other things and thus, can only sparingly reply to posts. I will attempt to do so below.
[1] Religious preconceptions
That's largely unavoidable, in that religion, regardless of which particular faith, has within it certain doctrines/teachings which are integral. In any case, the relationship between Islam as a religion with particular religious truths and science has not been confrontational at all.
You make mention of everyday experiences as being sufficient for our guidance, yet we all have different experiences, even if we live in the same neighborhood. The issue of medical assistance in dying/maintaining life is indeed a complex issue. We can share a religious perspective, but ultimately that is indeed an example of where [since there is no direct assertions in the Islamic religious texts about it] thinking and questioning are required. This is actually Islamic as well, a process known as Ijtihaad [Basically "intellectual Jihad"] and Qiyaas [analogy, basically meaning using precedents of similar cases as found in religious texts to derive some guidance].
[2] Antisemitism
The Qur'an certainly contains critical assessments of certain things in Jewish history, but the Bible does as well. Be it the Old Testament or the New Testament, you will find very strong statements. The last book of the N.T., called the Book of Revelations, has the comment "Synagogue of Satan". Does that mean the Bible is Anti-semitic?
In terms of positive things said about Jews in the Qur'an, one text therein says ( Q 3:75) that there are those among them ["people of scripture" refers to Jews and Christians] are those who, if entrusted with a treasure, would return it. In other words, the Qur'an is not generalizing.
[3] Proper Thinking
The verse you mentioned [49:14] is talking about, for lack of a better term "heart issues". When we read that Soorah [a very short Soorah] we find manners, ethics and the like. Try reading the entire chapter. It has to be read in context, and if it is studied in context one can see that it is speaking to certain ethical considerations. Here's an article on the chapter.
[url] http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2014/11/towards-applying-quran-examining-soorah.html[/url]
N.B.
I am unsure of what post on WI you are referring to, I have not been on there for a while. As for the Banu Quraydhah incident, there is quite alot of discussion on that, and it is probable that the numbers and details are exaggerated. It is a long issue, best addressed at another time.
More importantly, you ask about "The Christian God" and "The Muslim God". The Qur'an teaches that God cares for and provides for all. He is called "Caretaker of the Universe". Kufr is connected to terrible actions and mentality in this life. In other words, a "Kaafir" does not enter Hell simply due to theological mistakes. Even then, the Qur'an says that God can even provide mercy and for [Q 3:137] and it would not be anyone else's business except God.
Regards
S.Waheed
Hi Waheed. Thank you for responding, though I do wish that if you don't have time to respond to me fully, you'd focus on my main questions. As I said, I'm trying to understand the verses of Soorah Al Baqarah from the perspective of the people who heard these words directly from Muhammad, and, also, to understand why Muhammad would say these words.
Please try to imagine if there was a far-right Christian who was the mayor of an American town which had a significant Muslim population and he gave a speech that was similar to this Soorah? How would "his base" react to it? How would the Muslims react to it? What would you say motivated it?
In much the same way as in this Soorah, The Christian mayor could
1. attack Muslims for their refusal to accept Christian doctrine in spite of the "clear signs",
2. attack Muslims for not enjoining Christian rituals, (2:45, 2:83)
3. remind Muslims of the punishment for those who follow false prophets,
4. accuse Muslims of killing prophets who have come after Muhammad, (2:61)
5. tell Muslims that had it not been for God's grace and mercy, they would have been utter losers (2:64)
6. invent a story about Muslims being turned into apes (2:65)
7. accuse Muslims of distorting the Bible (2:75)
8. accuse Muslims of claiming to believe in Jesus when they do not (2:76)
9. claim that Muslims do not know the Scripture and are only assuming (2:78)
10. point out that Muslims have written "scripture" with their own hands (2:79)
11. point out that Muslims have attributed to Allah about which they do not know (2:80)
12. claim that Muslims will abide in the Fire eternally (2:81)
13. accuse Muslims of shedding each other's blood and evicting one another from their homes (2:84) and killing one another and cooperating against them in sin and aggression ... (2:85)
14. assert that the punishment for Muslims will not be lightened (2:86)
and on and on.
The mayor could end with:
Do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part?
So I ask again... why would Muhammad go to such lengths to verbally abuse his neighbours? It would be easy to attack Muslims along the same lines. But why would anyone choose to do that?
In my previous post I did not respond specifically to your "defence". With all due respect, I am very disappointed.
You quote a half of verse Q 3:75 as your best evidence of Islamic tolerance. Let me remind you of the full verse (have you forgotten it?) "And among the People of the Scripture is he who, if you entrust him with a great amount [of wealth], he will return it to you. And among them is he who, if you entrust him with a [single] silver coin, he will not return it to you unless you are constantly standing over him [demanding it]. That is because they say, "There is no blame upon us concerning the unlearned." And they speak untruth about Allah while they know [it]."
How can you possibly twist this into a positive statement about Muhammad's Jewish neighbours?
Then Surah Al-i'Imran goes on for even sharper criticism of the Jews than what is found in Surah Al-Baqarah. I wish you hadn't reminded me just how wickedly divisive this chapter is.
You also quote a phrase from the Book of Revelation, in a desperate attempt at a "whataboutism". Let me remind you what the verse says, since you seem to have forgotten: "I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan." (Revelation 2:9)
Remember that the author of this book is himself Jewish. This makes a big difference. If a Jew had written the Qur'an, my view of those chapters (2 and 3) would be very different.
The central point of the verse is "those who say they are Jews and are not". Who does this refer to? The verse is saying that people who say that they believe in the God of Abraham and say that they obey the Laws of Moses but do not: they are followers of Satan. That's definitely not antisemitic.
Do Muslims say that they believe in the God of Abraham and obey the Laws of Moses? And, if you ask a Jew, would the Jew say that Muslims claim that they are the same as Jews and would also say that they are not?
Hi Waheed. I have been thinking a lot about this post all week. I feel that I must speak directly to you; it gives me no joy to say what I am about to say. However, I hope that you will understand that I say this for your benefit.
In your post, you have deliberately tried to mislead me. You quoted a fragment of a verse from the Qur'an and told me that it has a meaning which, in context, clearly has a different meaning. You have also tried to shift my focus by pointing to a fragment in the New Testament which also has a very different meaning from what you said. You are not discussing these subjects in good faith, and I see this as a serious transgression.
Make no mistake. I am not at all angry about this. I understand your position and how you are forced into this position by your beliefs and by your religious preconceptions. I know that your ideas are deeply root, being impressed upon you from a very young age and before you were even aware of what was happening. It is easy for me to forgive you.
But look what this has led you to. You are unable to be honest with a total stranger on the internet. You would rather try to deceive me than discuss these issues honestly. And to what end? What purpose is there in trying to fool me?
Is this really the way forward for Muslims living in the West? Do you really want this attitude to be perpetuated in following generations, or is it time to break this cycle of indoctrination and dishonesty?
Are you able to break yourself free? Can you at least give the next generation a chance to be free of this improper thinking?
Hi N.B.
I have been traveling much this last month or so, so I have had little time to share thoughts on the blog.
With regards to your assertion that I have attempted to mislead you, nothing could be farther from the truth. I share on issues of this nature what I believe to be the truth. It is true that, particularly in comments, I tend to not share the source of quotations, as often I have memorized the text and not necessarily the chapter and verse reference, but to say that I have attempted to mislead you in a discussion on religion, that is plainly wrong. After all, I gain nothing from such a venture. This website is not monetized, and, as you have stated, we have not met each other face-to-face. I'm sorry that you seem to think otherwise.
Regarding the particular issues you have raised in this, and other comments, I will share some thoughts shortly. I have some time today, as well as work to be done, so I will address your concerns in future comments. I hope you will, at the least, see that I am simply sharing what I see to be the correct information or perspective.
" Hi Waheed. Thank you for responding, though I do wish that if you don't have time to respond to me fully, you'd focus on my main questions. As I said, I'm trying to understand the verses of Soorah Al Baqarah from the perspective of the people who heard these words directly from Muhammad, and, also, to understand why Muhammad would say these words.
Please try to imagine if there was a far-right Christian who was the mayor of an American town which had a significant Muslim population and he gave a speech that was similar to this Soorah? How would "his base" react to it? How would the Muslims react to it? What would you say motivated it?" [N.B.]
From the Islamic perspective, the Qur'an is not Muhammad's words, rather, it is the words of God. You shared lots of allusions to particular texts in Soorah Al-Baqarah, however it maybe a good idea to remember that it was not all sent or said at one time. So, it is not necessary to think that all of this is like a mayor whose prejudiced against a significant number of its residents saying terrible things about them in a speech.
In the fourteen references you alluded to, none of them are necessarily calling for violence or even hatred. Rather, much of the allusions cited in your post deal with spiritual or religious issues. Q 2:45 has really nothing to do with Jewish people per se [although yes that section does in general] and says to seek God's assistance by having patience and praying, while 2:83 speaks of the "covenant", the end of the text saying that they had in general abandoned it.
On this point, which you seem to think I was misleading you, I only said that the Bible contains critical statements of the Jews, and referred to the text in the book of Revelations. My only point was that both texts contain critical assessments of the Jewish people.
The Qur'an also contains critical assessments of Muslims, so does that mean the Qur'an is anti-Muslim, anymore than the Bible being anti-Jewish? In any case, it does not mean ALL Jews. The Qur'an calls Jews [and Christians] people of scripture, and allows marriage and eating of their food [Q 5:5]. If they were so bad according to the Qur'an, how could the same text allow these things? In any case allow me to go further in your post.
" So I ask again... why would Muhammad go to such lengths to verbally abuse his neighbours? It would be easy to attack Muslims along the same lines. But why would anyone choose to do that?" [N.B. quote]
There are certain things which happened between the followers of Muhammad, peace be on him, and the Jewish tribes in those days, but again I think you are forgetting that from the Islamic perspective, these are God's words and these words are pointing towards spiritual issues of contention.
" You quote a half of verse Q 3:75 as your best evidence of Islamic tolerance. Let me remind you of the full verse (have you forgotten it?) "And among the People of the Scripture is he who, if you entrust him with a great amount [of wealth], he will return it to you. And among them is he who, if you entrust him with a [single] silver coin, he will not return it to you unless you are constantly standing over him [demanding it]. That is because they say, "There is no blame upon us concerning the unlearned." And they speak untruth about Allah while they know [it]."
How can you possibly twist this into a positive statement about Muhammad's Jewish neighbours?"[N/.B. quote]
The verse, as well as the Qur'an in general, is very nuanced. Every member of a particular family is not necessarily good or bad. Some in the family maybe good, others may be evil, behaving without scruples. The first part of the verse says that there are Jews who are so honest, that if you give them treasures for safekeeping, they will return it to you without stealing, and others, if they are given in trust a single coin, would never return it, because they think that they are not morally obligated, or that they simply are selfish and don't care.
The same could be said of just about any religious or ethnic group, they have good members and they have bad members. Even if you think Muhammad simply said the above-referenced Quranic verse, still it is not stereotyping.
Technically, regarding the Book of Revelations, the author's identity is not a certainty, but even if we say he was of Jewish origin, he's still a convert to the Christian religion. That is an entirely different discussion, still, the point is is that both texts [Qur'an and Bible] have critical remarks. You want to attack the Qur'an for it while explaining away the Bible.
" Do Muslims say that they believe in the God of Abraham and obey the Laws of Moses? And, if you ask a Jew, would the Jew say that Muslims claim that they are the same as Jews and would also say that they are not?" [N.B. quote]
Yes we believe in the God of Abraham, and typically Jews [and even Christians, to a certain extent] don't dispute that Muslims see themselves as worshipping the same God.
God sent laws to Prophets, including to Muhammad, the final Prophet. We see Muhammad and the Qur'an given to him as ending that process, completing that process. Other than that, I'm unsure of what you are actually saying here.
"In the fourteen references you alluded to, none of them are necessarily calling for violence or even hatred. "
You're saying that slander is permissible if it doesn't directly call for violence? You then cherry pick the most mild of the slanders and point out that they aren't all that bad. Sure, but the ones you don't mention remain. And, there are Islamic texts that do call for violence against the Jews. Do I need to look them up for you in case you've forgotten them?
We have seen over and over in history the pattern of slander and the dehumanization of "the other" followed by hatred and finally ethnic cleansing. In many cases, there's an incident involving one of "the other" which is used as an excuse for a massively disproportionate retaliation. This pattern is described in plain language in the Islamic texts.
You tried to use the first half of Q 3:75 to show tolerance for Jews but that verse actually insinuates that Jews are somehow less trustworthy than other groups of people (otherwise, why single them out?) Now you try Q 5:5. Do you really think that I won't look up these verses and check what their context is? The context of the first part of this verse, following from the previous verses, is what food is halal. It merely states that food from Jewish sources is halal. Then on marriage, the verse is specific that WOMEN may be married by Muslim men, and seems to be saying that Muslim men should marry them rather than committing fornication with them! Wow! What a fine statement of tolerance for your neighbours! This verse does nothing to support your claim.
"You shared lots of allusions ..."
I'm not "alluding" to anything. I'm pointing directly to the texts that support my position. It is true that we don't know if these things were said at one time, but, according to Islamic tradition, the time between Muhammad's arrival in Yathrib and the eradication of the Jewish tribes was about 5 years.
"From the Islamic perspective, the Qur'an is not Muhammad's words, rather, it is the words of God."
May I suggest that you refrain from saying this to non-Muslims. There are two reasons:
1. In most cases, you use it as a precursor to dodging an issue. When you aren't able to defend your position using facts and logic, you shrug and say "so it is written". When we see this, we know that you don't have a valid position.
2. It is provocative. When we read this, our reaction is simple: we believe otherwise. If you don't respect our beliefs, why should we respect yours? Naturally, we react by pointing out the numerous reasons why we don't think that the Qur'an is the "words of God". This is a pointless direction in which to move a discussion.
If you wish to communicate with non-Muslims, it is totally ineffective for you to argue from this position; you need to speak to us in our own language.
I must point out that our rejection of your "words of God" belief does not imply that we believe that there is no truth in the Qur'an. Quite the contrary, it forces us to challenge each and every verse; something you are unwilling to do. If you wish to be effective, you should oblige us by accepting that perhaps a verse is faulty and then demonstrating in an open-minded way why the verse is worthy to be deemed "words of God".
I should also point out that many times, you make the excuse that the words are "nuanced". This gets to the primary issue that I've been raising in these comments: How were these words understood by those who heard the words directly from Muhammad? My objective is to understand the life and times of Muhammad; interpretations of these verses that were devised centuries later do not apply.
[quote] You're saying that slander is permissible if it doesn't directly call for violence? You then cherry pick the most mild of the slanders and point out that they aren't all that bad. Sure, but the ones you don't mention remain. And, there are Islamic texts that do call for violence against the Jews. Do I need to look them up for you in case you've forgotten them?[/quote]
As I have attempted to convey, the Qur'an does not make blanket condemnation of a people nor does it give praise for all members of a community. Please pick some verses, read the context and-if possible- share what maybe of interest to you from any commentary you have access to [I seem to recall you referencing Tafheem ul Qur'an by Maulana Maududi] and I will discuss with you, as time permits.
[quote] You tried to use the first half of Q 3:75 to show tolerance for Jews but that verse actually insinuates that Jews are somehow less trustworthy than other groups of people (otherwise, why single them out?) Now you try Q 5:5. Do you really think that I won't look up these verses and check what their context is? The context of the first part of this verse, following from the previous verses, is what food is halal. It merely states that food from Jewish sources is halal. Then on marriage, the verse is specific that WOMEN may be married by Muslim men, and seems to be saying that Muslim men should marry them rather than committing fornication with them! Wow! What a fine statement of tolerance for your neighbours! This verse does nothing to support your claim.[/quote]
I welcome and want you to look up the references I share, particularly the Quranic texts. What better example of tolerance/interaction/positive ties than that of marriage and food, the main items of social ties?
I think you are reading the text wrongly, please review it. It is not allowing fornication at all, and allows marriage and the food of "people of scripture" a term for both Jews and Christians.
[quote] May I suggest that you refrain from saying this to non-Muslims. There are two reasons:
1. In most cases, you use it as a precursor to dodging an issue. When you aren't able to defend your position using facts and logic, you shrug and say "so it is written". When we see this, we know that you don't have a valid position.[/quote]
By stating what I believe, I am sharing an answer to the query. It's up to the reader to decide for himself if that is valid or not, but I'm not going to apologize for sharing what I see as correct and useful for answering the query.
[quote] 2. It is provocative. When we read this, our reaction is simple: we believe otherwise. If you don't respect our beliefs, why should we respect yours? Naturally, we react by pointing out the numerous reasons why we don't think that the Qur'an is the "words of God". This is a pointless direction in which to move a discussion.[/quote]
How is sharing beliefs a provocation? Your screen name is "Non-Believer" and you have made it clear that you have a particular belief, mainly that God does not exist. It's not an issue of respect or disrespect. You read the blog, read books and articles etc.. and you share your thoughts, and I share mine.
[quote]should also point out that many times, you make the excuse that the words are "nuanced". This gets to the primary issue that I've been raising in these comments: How were these words understood by those who heard the words directly from Muhammad? My objective is to understand the life and times of Muhammad; interpretations of these verses that were devised centuries later do not apply.[/quote]
You seem to think that as soon as "these words" were heard by the Muslims, they went on bloody rampages against local Jews.
What I'm saying is [1] That's actually not the case. [2] The history as well as Textual context shows that there are nuances in all of this.
Yes, the Qur'an has critical terms for elements amongst the Jews. But it also has positive things about them. Yes, it is critical of fundamental Christian doctrines, but it also has very nice things to say about their community. It has very harsh language for Bedouins, but it also has positive things to say about them.
It's not blanket condemnation nor blanket exaltation. That is why I say the Quranic treatment is very nuanced.
"You seem to think that as soon as "these words" were heard by the Muslims, they went on bloody rampages against local Jews. "
No, Waheed, this isn't the way it works. As I've described in my comments, over the course of history, we have seen many examples of ethnic cleansing. The steps leading up to it involve slander, scapegoating, provocations and dehumanization of "the other". Ethnic cleansing doesn't happen overnight.
Will you at least admit that there were Jewish settlements in Yathrib for centuries and that they coexisted with the non-Jewish inhabitants? Will you admit that these were eradicated within a few years of Muhammad's arrival? Will you agree that this is an example of "ethnic cleansing"?
Why are you unable to articulate why this action was permissible? Unless we, non-Muslims, understand under what conditions Islam justifies the annihilation of non-Muslims, how can we feel safe?
@ Non-Believer:
I hope this reply finds you well.
I agree in general about the course of history that leads to great crimes, ethnic cleansing and the like, however that is NOT what happened with the Prophet's interaction with the Jewish community.
There were Jews who accepted Islam, there were Jews who rejected Islam, there were Jews who were involved in plots against the Prophet, there were Jews who favored goodly relations with Muslim polity.
Do have a read of the history. There were particular groups, who did particular actions. It's not the same thing as what happened in Nazi Germany. Not by any means of the imagination.
There were groups who were expelled, and groups that engaged in combat against the Muslims, allied to the Non Muslim Makkan foes, who engaged in various plots against the Muslims.
Individual Jews, or individual Christians, or disbelievers in general, were not targeted by the Prophet.
Islam does not justify the annihilation of Non Muslims, and even within the early history, one sees that Muslims allowed and even protected the Non Muslims religious rights.
I would suggest reading up some more on the Prophet's life, in particular the battles and the relations with Non Muslims. A good, brief book is Muhammad The Prophet by Maulana Muhammad Ali. A more scholastic work is The Life of Muhammad, by Muhammad Husayn Haykal.
Hello, Waheed. As always, I'm grateful that you've found time to respond to me.
I'm still hoping that we can put our biases behind us and look at this history objectively. The book by Maulana Muhammad Ali is avaliable online. Seriously, it is hard to imagine a more biased view of the life of Muhammad.
Every story has two sides. The Quraish were real people with real human traits. So were the Yathribi Jews. It is unjust to simply dismiss them as "enemies of Islam" without trying to understand why they were so opposed to Muhammad.
It is a tragic irony that Muslims claim that Muhammad was invited to Yathrib to adjudicate a peace when we know that the outcome was the total destruction of a significant portion of the society that was there. We don't need "arbiters of peace" like this.
Muslim historians justify the expulsion of two tribes and the extermination of a third tribe because they were "a threat" to Islam. What would Jewish historians say about these incidents? Will you try to tell me that the Muslims were not an even greater "threat" to the Jews? Is it Islamic to destroy opponents who you perceive to be "a threat"? Admittedly, this was an extremely difficult political situation but is this the only solution that the "Divinely Guided" could find?
I truly don't understand how you see this as anything other than ethnic cleansing.
Q 60:9 comes to mind, as it would also apply against those who expelled the Jews, would it not?
"Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers."
Please describe to me in your own words, in real human term, why you think the Quraish and the Yathribi Jews opposed the Muslims so strongly. Then you will understand modern Islamophobia. It seems that nothing has changed and Islamophobia existed from the very beginning.
Please acknowledge the slander by Maulana Muhammad Ali (p.105) "Trade coupled with usury had made them [the Jews] rich." You know this isn't an accurate picture of the Yathribi economy. Or "but the growing prosperity of Islam kindled the spark of jealousy in their hearts". That's just ridiculous. So, so biased. It's appalling that young Muslim minds are being poisoned like this. Please teach your children respect for those who do not share your religious views.
Maulana Muhammad Ali (p. 112) "The battle of Ahzab established the fact that Islam was supported by the Divine hand." Do you really believe this? If Muhammad truly believed this then he had no reason to fear the Jewish tribes. They "could do little harm to Islam".
For my part, I would like to respect Islam, but how can I when I see this barrage of hate and slander?
Hello NB.
As I have moved and travel much, I have not had time to really share replies to your queries. Moreover, I also knew that you would prefer Non Muslim sources, but much of my private library is still in storage.
In terms of your queries regarding the Prophet's relation with Jewish groups in Madinah and the areas around it, there were not all the same, this is something which the Qur'an itself acknowledges. In real human terms, there were Jews who entered into conspiracies to undermine and even destroy the Muslims. In terms of motivations, the usual ones are applicable, jealousy, religious, and threat in some respect or another to their power and income.
But again, even in that, not all were the same. There were Jews in Madinah, and other Non Muslims, there after the Prophet. Moreover, in the ages after all of that Jews found refuge in Muslim lands.
The quotes you share from MMA's book on the Prophet summarizes the situation. I would suggest making a read of the book, not just the quote above. PP. 105-112. More details are to be found in Haykal's book.
On the contrary, I try to read only Muslim sources. I'm trying to understand how Islam teaches Muslims to think. It's really quite disturbing when I read books like MMA's book, but we in the West have to understand what we're up against with the growing Islamic influences here.
You seem to forget that the Jewish tribes of Yathrib were long established and prosperous. They had no reason to be jealous of the Muslims. Muhammad's theology was largely borrowed from them, so they had no reason to object to him over religion, other than what would have seemed to them to be a ridiculous claim that he was a "prophet". From their perspective, Muhammad wouldn't have known what a Jewish prophet was like. As for power, where is the evidence that the Jews sought power over anything more than their own community? Indeed, they would've seen the Muslims as a threat to their sovereignty. We now know that this fear was entirely justified.
You are going to argue that a small number of Jews survived the Muslim onslaught... how do we even know that this true? Even so, how does that support your position? If the West removed all but a small number of Muslims from our countries, would we be able to point to the remaining Muslims and say that it proves how tolerant we are of Muslims?
Don't continue in this foolish denial. It is clear that Muhammad had to remove the Jews. There could be no peace with them as long as he depended on his claim of prophethood as the source of his power and authority while the vast majority of the Jews rejected this claim.
It is the same today... Jews do not accept Muhammad's claim and with 1400 years of evidence, we all know that the Yathribi Jews were right.
It's time for Islam to acknowledge the injustice suffered by the Jews at the hands of Muhammad. This is the sort of step forward that must be taken if there is to be hope that we can all live together on this small planet. Muslims must be remorseful over the violence that occurred, rather than rejoicing with ridiculous assertions like in MMA's book: "The battle of Ahzab established the fact that Islam was supported by the Divine hand." That is just crazy talk.
It is so ironic that Muhammad is portrayed as the champion for the oppressed when he, himself, oppressed all those people who did not ally themselves with him.
Hello N.B.
I'm just getting a chance to make a reply to all of your posts, and hope you find some benefit in my replies. I also hope you don't take my replies as argumentative or anything of that sort.
[1] The book by MMA is a basic, good, introduction to the life of the Prophet. It's not an exhaustive or huge tome. If that is such a work you find to your liking, I would recommend another book, called "The Life of Muhammad" by Muhammad Husayn Haykal.
[2] Yes, the Madinan Jews had influence and wealth, not only in terms of Madinah but in many respects throughout Arabian society and economy in general. There were Jews who accepted the claims of Muhammad to Prophethood, and it is clear that the Prophet preached to them [as he would preach to all], but a rising star [from their perspective] like Muhammad, would prove a threat, which explains that some of them went to ally themselves, even after treaties being made, with forces hostile to Islam. Indeed, the Muslim sources tell us that some Jews would insult and ridicule the Prophet to his face, yet it was not till certain things happened that the Prophet had to take action against them. And even then, it was limited and does not include a blanket "kick out the Jews" for all Jews.
[3] The Quranic commentary literature asserts that- in terms of religion- Jews really began to express hostilities when the prayer direction (qiblah) was changed from Jerusalem to Makkah. Perhaps they saw initially in him a character who would be subordinate to them, and when that did not happen, they grew hostile.
[4] But even in that, we should remember that the Qur'an itself says that "not all of them are alike". It also says that they are "people of scripture". It says that we can eat of their food and have some marriage ties with them. In the West, often Muslims will eat Kosher food when Halal is unavailable. Jews and Muslims have had-in a broad general sense sense historically- very good ties, and only in the contemporary period disagree on the issue of Palestine [and even then, there are many Jews who are opposed to the Zionist enterprise].
[5] I think that your reading of the situation is to assume that Jewish-Muslim relations is similar to what-historically- it was between Jews and Christians. This is far from the case. Jews thrived in Muslim lands, especially at times when Jews faced persecution, expulsions, and the like, within Christian Europe.
Hello, Waheed. I'm disappointed to see that you are unable to open your mind to the Jewish perspective of the situation after Muhammad's arrival in Yathrib.
I have no doubt that the some of the Jews would insult and ridicule the Prophet to his face, as you have said. Imagine, please, if a man appeared today anywhere in the Western or Muslim world and proclaimed himself to be a Messenger of God. No doubt, the vast majority of people who heard him would say that he was a madman. No, we shouldn't ridicule the mentally ill, but many of us do so. There are places, especially in some Muslim countries, where a madman like this would be arrested and, quite possibly, put to death for his crime of blasphemy.
While the Jews may have been rude and defiant, I wouldn't describe them as hostile and belligerent. Those attributes apply to Muhammad as we see clearly from the Qur'an. I've pointed out many verse already. Do I need to point out more? As Muhammad's power increased, of course the Jews would have become alarmed. The madman wasn't a threat to them until he had an army; then they had every reason to be terrified of his belligerent attitude.
It's odd what you say about the changing of the qiblah. How would that change the Jews? No, it points to a change in Muhammad's attitude. Until then, he was attempting to portray himself as some sort of Jewish prophet. W.N.Arafat wrote: “It is also generally accepted that at first the Prophet Muhammad hoped that the Jews of Yathrib, as followers of a divine religion, would show understanding of the new monotheistic religion, Islam.” Moving the qiblah marks the point when Muhammad recognized that he could never win over the Jews.
To be clear, I'm not saying the Muhammad was specifically anti-Semitic. He was just as belligerent when it came to the polytheists as revealed in Surah Al-Tawbah.
1/2...
..2
You talk about treaties and alliance. Let's examine Maududi's account of the first treaty violation (http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/59/index.html) "By and by things came to such a pass that one day a Muslim woman was stripped naked publicly in their bazaar. This led to a brawl in which a Muslim and a Jew were killed. Thereupon the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) himself visited their locality, got them together and counseled them on decent conduct. But the reply that they gave was; "O Muhammad, you perhaps think we are like the Quraish. They did not know fighting; therefore, you overpowered them. But when you come in contact with us, you will see how men fight." This was in clear words a declaration of war. Consequently, the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) laid siege to their quarters towards the end of Shawwal (and according to some others, of Dhi Qa'dah) A. H. 2."
So you tell me: "who violated the treaty?" The incident with the woman was a criminal assault and should've been dealt with by Muhammad, since according to the treaty "If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise, it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the Apostle of God". Did Muhammad do his job? And, will you stand by your comments on whyislam that a crime by an individual cannot be blamed on his entire group?
And then when Muhammad threatened a group of Bani Qainuqa, they were defiant. So Muhammad raised his army against them, by what law is this justified? And he would've murdered them except for the intervention of Abdullah bin Ubbay they were only expelled. This was the end of any treaty between the Jews and Muhammad. It is ridiculous to try to apply the treaty after this event. Of course, the Jews would seek assistance from the Quraish. The assassination of Ka'b bin Ashraf was another serious crime authorized by Muhammad himself.
Maududi's chapter (http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/59/index.html) mentions serious crimes committed on Muhammad's orders, but I don't see any crimes ordered by Jewish chiefs.
Do I need to go on, or have I shown, using your own stories, that Muhammad treated the Jews with great injustice? Won't you please admit this, so we can move on to more interesting subjects?
Here is a brief summary of what happened with the Jewish tribes in the Prophet's time.
[url] http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/The_Jewish_Tribes_Of_Madinah.html[/url]
Hi Waheed. It saddens me to see you respond with this article. I've seen it before and much of what I've written directly challenges the conclusions in the article. I can see that you don't have the time to reflect on what I'm saying and to respond more directly to my points. I understand this.
I have an idea, though: Perhaps you could find a student who is interested in a more thorough discussion of the issues that I raise, both in this thread and in other threads, and would be willing to take the time to respond in greater detail. If that is possible, I would make one more suggestion: that the student take my position before his classmates/peers and argue my position with ardency before responding to me with their collective views. This is a very valuable way to learn and has been practised in schools since ancient times. Of course, I'd expect that you would want to moderate such a dialog.
What do you think?
Haykal writes about the expulsion of the Banu Qaynuqa:
The incident (of the woman at the jeweller's shop) was only the spark which inflamed Muslims and Jews and caused them to explode. The fact was that the presence of Muslims, Jews, associationists and munafiqun in one city with all their disparate ideals and customs made that city a political volcano replete with explosive power. The blockade of Banu Qaynuqa` and their expulsion were a prologue to the coming explosion.
It is clear from this that Haykal and I agree that there could never be peace between any of these groups and the Muslims. Whatever incidents there were, they were inevitable. If not this occasion, then there would've been another.
So my question to you is simple: What has changed? Don't Muslims today still hope for the complete overthrow of all other ideologies and view any opposition to this course as "sedition"?
Non-Believer,
That's Haykal's personal opinion. I don't believe the idea of communal living among different faiths in the Prophet's Medina was doomed from the start. The Compact of Medina that served as the city's charted and first constitution in world history, was promulgated by the Prophet (PBUH) with that spirit and good faith. Ultimately, the jealousy and bristling of the Jews at the rise of a rival faith got the best of them, and they ultimately lost the ensuing power struggle. That's about the view of most Muslims in a nutshell.
It's difficult to extrapolate the Prophet's historical experience in Medina, and base future projections upon it. That Prophet (PBUH) was just that, a prophet and exceptional historical circumstance. He could justify certain actions as part of his mission in the way of God to establish Islam. The rest of us cannot do that because we can't claim that kind of spiritual authority or mandate. See if you can discern in the Prophet's experience in Medina actions where he was responding to personal injuries and slights to himself as an individual, as opposed to Jewish opposition and attempts to thwart him in executing a divine mission/plan. The difficulty for non-Muslim readers is that they don't see the latter role, because naturally they don't believe in him as a prophet.
the jealousy and bristling of the Jews at the rise of a rival faith got the best of them
Shenango, I do my best to support my assertions with evidence. I can find no evidence to support a claim that the Jews of Medina, nor the pagans of Mecca, were jealous of the Muslims. Also, I can't find any evidence that the Jews and the pagans fought over religion, so it is a stretch to think that either group would see another religion as "rivals".
On the other hand, it is readily apparent that the Muslims had little tolerance for those who would not join them, accusing them of "treachery" and murdering them.
Non-Believer,
NO evidence to support a claim of Jewish jealousy of the Muslims? Then why did the Jews go bananas when the verse came to the Prophet (PBUH) changing the Muslim prayer direction from Jerusalem to Mecca. Did that affect their own (Jewish) lives at all? Why would Jewish monotheists try to woo the pagans by telling them their idolatry was better than the one God of the Muslims? Why did they try to assassinate the Prophet (PBUH), once with a poisoned mutton, and another time with a boulder? Why did they betray the common defense pact for Medina during its seige by the pagans? One could go on an on. No evidence? What does all this evidence suggest to you?
You've allowed your hatred of Islam to bias your views so much that you're unable to own up to your own dishonesty even when confronted with it directly.
If you're going to accuse me of dishonesty, you ought to be specific. IF you're going to accuse me of hate, again, you had better be specific, and provide evidence. When you resort to argumentum ad hominem, I know that you have nothing objective to say.
Why is it that you are unable to acknowledge the "realpolitik" of the situation? The Jews were an obstacle to Muhammad's mission and it was obvious that they would never accept Muhammad as a "prophet". To be successful, he had to silence the Jews. The incidents that you mention are basically irrelevant given the inevitability of the outcome.
Clearly the attitude of the Jews changed as Muhammad gained power. At first, he was seen as an object of ridicule, a madman claiming that God was speaking to him, a beggar who depended on charity. What was his occupation? Caravan robber. This is not someone you'd be jealous of.
Once Muhammad acquired some power and began murdering and expelling Jews in fulfilment of his threat in Q 3:10-13, they would've felt fear not jealousy.
Do you really not know why Jews would view idolatry to be better than worshipping a false prophet? Do you really not know why the Jews would want to assassinate Muhammad after he began his campaign of ethnic cleansing? Do you really not understand why the Jews would reach out to the Meccans for assistance once this was underway?
I, too, could go on.
Non-Believer,
How much more specific can I get? I just provided you no less than five specific examples bolstering my point against yours that the Jews were jealous of Islam's rise. What "realpolitik" are you talking about? At least get your history right before you enter a debate. When the Prophet (PBUH) arrived in Medina he already had a sizeable following of Muslims who fled Mecca with him, that grew even bigger when most of the pagans of Medina converted. For the Jews of Medina he was never an object of ridicule, and one of their senior rabbis, 'Abdullah Bin Salam, converted to Islam and accepted his message. By accepting the Compact of Medina the Jewish tribes in the city essentially accepted his political leadership over them voluntarily and peacefully. The Compact didn't specify that they had to convert to Islam or accept him as prophet.
Read the Prophet's biography and verify these facts yourself. Your emotional hatred of Islam doesn't mean you get to invent your own facts. No, seriously, go ahead and look up the above information and verify its correctness yourself.
Hi Shenango. I have looked up your examples and I have previously responded to them. It seems pointless to carry on in this vein. You accuse me of inventing facts, but you don't point to a fact that I have invented.
I would rather address the more important issue and the one that is relevant in our time. You say that I hate Islam and you probably say that about other people. Have you thought about why that is?
Let me make of list of some things that I freely admit to hating and then let's see if Islam fits the list:
1. I hate hatred.
2. I hate injustice.
3. I hate it when a person's actions contradict their words.
4. I hate it when people fail to treat their opponents as worthy human beings.
I think you can see from this list, my issue is with an historical figure who lived during the 7th Century; not with Islam, a religion which developed over many centuries after its founding, nor with the religion's modern day followers.
I wish that conversations about Islam:
1. Were conducted without preconceptions about what the "truth" is,
2. Considered issues from both sides,
3. Avoided fallacious arguments.
Do you understand?
Non-Believer,
The facts you're inventing are your errant interpretations of the historical events of the Prophet's interactions with the Medinan Jews. You want to debate with us but your arguments never end up leaving the ground because of your ignorance and/or misunderstanding of the actual events and their proper context. If you're serious about debating us, you need to read a direct translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirah (Biography) of the Prophet (PBUH). Alfred Guillaume's English translation is usually cited as the classic. Put aside book's like Haykal's and Lang's for the time being, as these are introducing the modern authors' opinions on events.
It's like you asking us what we think of Hitler's policies helped grow Germany after the Nazis won World War II, and then getting mad at us when we reply that we can't answer you because the Nazis didn't win World War II and Hitler didn't survive the war. That's what dialoguing with you is like, and I often find myself wondering "where the hell is he getting this stuff?" Listen to me when I tell you to read the history properly first. I'm not prepared to continue the discussion any further until you have a solid understanding of the actual recorded history. Don't read it from the Qur'an either, because its context-dependent verses cannot be understood properly without the requisite background history.
You're talking to an experienced (~20 yrs. now) debater on this stuff, and I know when I see an amateur who hasn't done his homework first.
Secondly, regarding your veiled/implied attack singling out the Prophet (PBUH), you have to respect the fact, like it or not, that you (was it us who sought you out, or the other way around?) that this man is a holy figure for us. You can't approach us with questions like "What do you think about this bad man's actions in this instance?" To you the idea that he's a bad man may be a given, but when you approach us like that understand why that's a turn off for us and we won't humor your questions like that. If you tick us off you'll likely leave empty-handed and frustrated. It's that insensitivity that got you banned from the WhyIslam Forum in the first place.
How about actually trying to get us to agree with you that he's a bad man first? Muslims living in the West are never insulated, as our brothers in the Islamic heartland may often be, from criticism of the more controversial aspects of the Prophet's biography. We've had it poked in our faces from the time we were kids. If we've made it to adulthood and still believe in him it's because of strong conviction. It's because we've examined these controversies and understood them as still indicative of an ultimately righteous man, viewed in their proper context. In other words, we have a sophisticated, complex, mature understanding of these events. You get frustrated with us that we have to complicate events that seem simple black and white, right vs. wrong, to you with needless details, but the fact is that it's precisely in those details that his actions become justifiable. So when we ask you to actually read up on the history and context of the events, were not just pestering you with useless facts.
Thirdly, in general, as a principle of debate, the questioner has to present the evidence for their claim, not the rebutter. You're asking us for evidence for our rebuttals when all we're asking you to do is read the set-down history properly first. When asking questions, especially if it's an allegation or historical claim, then quote your source in support. Actually post it in the text along with the question. We can't address the allegation unless we know where it's coming from. If it's from your own reasoning then post the supporting texts you used to reach your conclusion. It's hard for us to correct any incorrect interpretation without that.
Hello Shenango.
I'm happy to see that you misspoke. You said "invent your own facts", but now you say "inventing your errant interpretations". I have no trouble admitting that I am interpreting the historical events. If my interpretation is errant, then it is up to you to point out the errors. Recently Waheed referred me to a talk by an Imam who ended his talk with the words: "If the truth is what I expressed then I thank Allah. If I have gone off course or made a mistake or maybe was inaccurate in what I said, it is YOUR responsibility to bring it to my attention."
I don't see this as a debate and if this is how you think that you should have dialogue with a non-Muslim, then good luck to you! Have you learned anything in your 20 years of experience?
You have a binary view of this history. You seem to believe that a person must 100% embrace everything that Muhammad did as being good or reject 100% as being evil. I get it: your faith does not allow you to admit otherwise. That doesn't mean that the opposite is the case for me. I can look at each act and evaluate it based on my understanding of the event and what I hold as values. You can't defend Muhammad's actions on the basis of a faith which I do not hold; you have to meet me on my own terms. If after 20 years, you can't defend your position in a way that a non-Muslim will accept, then that is your problem, not ours. Belittling us for not having read enough of your books or by claiming some sort of superior ability to understand complex matters will achieve nothing.
Now I would also like to address some inaccuracies in what you wrote. As the Imam said in the video, it is my responsibility to point these out to you.
You wrote: When the Prophet (PBUH) arrived in Medina he already had a sizeable following of Muslims who fled Mecca with him, that grew even bigger when most of the pagans of Medina converted. I have had some trouble finding reliable figures for this. However, it is stated that at Badr, there were 77 Emigrants and 236 Ansar. The Quraysh were said to be between 900 and 1000. Some accounts give slightly different numbers. I don't know what the populations of Mecca and Medina were (do you?). There are accounts of Muhammad having an army of 3000 men at the Battle of the Trench. Therefore, we know that the Emigrants at Badr were less than 10% of the Quraysh population and the Ansar at that time were less than 10% of the Medinan population. 77 converts after 13 years of preaching and you believe that Allah himself was telling Muhammad how to preach to these people. Undoubtedly, you will argue that it requires a "sophisticated, complex, mature understanding" to understand Muhammad's lack of success in getting Arabs to accept his message. However, I can answer that more easily than you, since I understand why I don't accept his message and you do not.
Next you'll argue that you understand my thought process better than I myself do.
You wrote: For the Jews of Medina he was never an object of ridicule, and one of their senior rabbis, 'Abdullah Bin Salam, converted to Islam and accepted his message The Jewish response to this man's conversion (Bukhari 4:546) Allah's Apostle said, "What do you think if he embraces Islam (will you do as he does)?" The Jews said, "May Allah save him from it." Then 'Abdullah bin Salam came out in front of them saying, "I testify that None has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah." Thereupon they said, "He is the evilest among us, and the son of the evilest amongst us," and continued talking badly of him. In short, his conversion was utterly rejected by the Jews.
Non-Believer,
In my view you're inventing both facts and faulty interpretations of those facts, such as to make it difficult for us to know where to begin to correct you. I stand by my recommendations to you that if you're seriously into discussing and/or debating these matters with Muslims, that you do your homework first by educating yourself in the most objective way possible on the actual recorded history/events before bringing any conclusions to the table to discuss.
I've made this point to you before, and will re-stress it again that some actions of the Prophet (PBUH) are only defensible if lend credibility to the fact that he was acting in his role as God's messenger. Non-Muslims, naturally because they don't accept him as a prophet, tend not to see this second role that he played, and tend to see his actions only as an individual greedy for money, power and influence. You don't have to be a Muslim to see this, you just have to make sufficient allowance for how one could see these actions as proper coming from a Muslim perspective. But because that's kind of a complex thing to achieve, most non-Muslims never get there, so when I tell you from experience that you're unlikely to ever get there, it's not belittling, at least not you in particular, even though you perceive it that way. It's just my pessimism talking from experience.
But to respond to your factual points, here's the following.
Regarding your point about the numbers at Badr, you're leaving out quite a bit, my friend. Remember that the Emigrants fighting at Badr only included able-bodied men. You have to leave out the ones who were sick or aged, plus all the women and children. Plus, there were about 120 or so Emigrants that the Prophet (PBUH) sent as refugees to Abyssinia before the Hijrah. Some of those had returned by then, but not all. All told you're looking at least a few hundred people. This doesn't count the 12 or so Medinan men who had already converted to Islam prior to his arrival and had been telling everyone in Medina they could about him, and the 20 or so Christian men from Najran who returned to Yemen after being converted while still in Mecca. With a few scattered converts added here and there and the Muslims who died at the hands of persecutors back in Mecca, and you're looking at a respectable figure. Martin Lings states the number of Muslim men (that is not women and children included) who came out to welcome the Prophet (PBUH) into Medina on his arrival was about 100 men.
Not only had the Prophet (PBUH) created a buzz in Medina prior to his arrival with the few converts there, but the Jews of Medina had been sought out by the Meccans while he was still in Mecca to determine if he was a true prophet. The Jews presented three questions as a trial, and their answers were revealed as Qur'anic verses that were taken back to the Jews at Medina. He had answered their questions masterfully. They knew they weren't up against an amateur when he finally arrived in Medina.
And as for 'Abdullah Bin Salam's conversion, you deliberately concealed the first part of the hadith that you quoted where the Jews used to call him the best and most learned among them, and quoted only the last part where after his conversion they lied and started to call him the worst among them. You concealed it to protect your earlier claim:
Non-Believer: "I can find no evidence to support a claim that the Jews of Medina...were jealous of the Muslims"
The question isn't whether you'd see jealousy if it was staring you in the face, because you clearly do, but whether you can own up to your own dishonesty. I told you that you were dealing with a pro. :-)
I see. You're assessment of what I know and how I process information is based on a stereotype of non-Muslims that you hold. At least you're being honest. Others haven't read the biographies, so I must not have. Others say that Muhammad was motivated by greed, so I must think that. Others haven't read tafsir, so I must not have. And so on. You call it pessimism. I would use other words.
The statement I made is that the Emigrant fighters numbered less than 1/10 of the Quraysh fighters. Does this translate to the overall population? What would you assume about the ratio of non-fighting Emigrants to non-Fighting Quraysh? I would think that it would be an even lower ratio, much lower, strengthening my point, but that's just an assumption. Likewise with the Medinan, I'd assume that the Ansar would have a disproportionately high number of fighting men compared to the overall population. Since I have no information about the whole populations, I made a statement based on what we do know from the histories, the fighting populations. If you have a coherent argument to justify that the relative populations overall were different, I'd like to hear it. Maybe you consider "a few hundred people" out of thousands to be a "sizeable following"; the man was offering eternal Paradise if you followed him and eternal Hellfire if you did not, but after 13 years less than 10% of the people believed him. Just the fact's, man. I could go on to point out that this proportion has risen to something like 25 or 30% in 1400 years, including all sorts of people who probably shouldn't be included. Given the stakes, it shows how unconvincing the arguments are. And, you continue to believe that these arguments come from Allah, himself?
As for the 'Abdullah Bin Salam point, your accusation is disgraceful. Of course I know that you know the first part. The story would have no relevance if the first part were different: if the Jews held the rabbi in low esteem to begin with, then the disdain for him afterwards could not be attributed to his conversion. Isn't that obvious?
You say you're such a pro, but that isn't the word that I would use.
I don't know if I have time to get into "the three questions". How does the story go? The Quraysh are said to have asked some rabbis for some questions to test Muhammad and after a number of days Muhammad is said to have provided some answers. The story goes on to say that the Quraysh presented these answers to the rabbis who they say confirmed that Muhammad had answered the questions correctly and that the only way he could have done this was through Divine Revelation. Sure... What could I say about a story like that? I will say this: You can learn a lot about people from the stories that they tell. I read stories with the goal to understand why the story is being told the way it is. What is the motivation of the story? Is the story meant to teach a lesson (a parable)? Or, perhaps the story is political and is intended to influence how a person thinks about an issue. These are but a couple of possible motivations.
Non-Believer,
I'm not sure where you're going with your argument about the number of followers. You originally suggested that the Jews originally thought the Prophet (PBUH) was a madman worthy of ridicule. There's no historical evidence to suggest that they ever thought that. Some sources suggest that at least some of the Jews had been warning the pagan Arabs against the evils of their ways and predicting a prophet to come. Some speculate that's why the Medinan Jews settled in Medina in the first place, in anticipation of the coming prophet. When the Meccans sent the delegate(s) with the famous 'three questions', it was as if to ask the Jews, in other words, "is this guy you guys were talking about?".
If you feel you have a source that suggests the Medinan Jews did not take the Prophet (PBUH) seriously, then post it here. That they refused to submit to him is not to say they didn't take him seriously.
I have to say in my many years of debate I've not yet come across anyone bring up a supposed low number of converts as evidence against the truth of the Prophet's message, if I understand you correctly. I mean he was preaching heaven and hell yes, but these were new concepts to the Quraish, who didn't even believe in an afterlife. For all the economic, social and political turmoil his message threatened to cause in Mecca, one could see the argument from the other direction and say it's miraculous he had as many converts as he did. So I'm not sure what definitive conclusion you could really draw. Ultimately, Islam's growth was exponential. From a few hundred followers at the time of the Hijrah to the entire population of the Arabian peninsula in the decade following to his death, is an amazing feat. 3,000 men at arms at the Battle of the Trench to 10,000 who marched on Mecca at 630 and so on. That was basically accomplished in about 20 years of preaching openly. To put that into some perspective, the New Testament says Jesus (AS) had about 500 followers at the ascension, and that was a prophet who supposedly resurrected from the dead and resurrected others from the dead!!!
In 14 centuries Islam has become the 2nd most populous religion in the world, and quickly gaining on its only rival for the number one spot. Islam has been around for about 70% of Christianity's history, and has roughly around 70% its number of followers. *Shrug*...I mean I'm not sure what else to say. Stick around another hundred years and check back then maybe?
No apology? I'm not surprised.
Now you put words in my mouth: I never said that the Medinan Jews did not take the Prophet seriously.
This is my last post in this thread. I'll end by repeating what I said at the beginning, which is why I posted in this thread in the first place, a little over a year ago. I was responding to Waheed's broad mis-characterization of non-Muslims. Neither you nor Waheed has said anything in this thread or at any time that gives me any hope
In the meantime, please refrain from your accusations against those of us who reject your approach. We are not all driven by ambition and hubris, filled with hatred and envy, and we don't all produce nothing but destruction. We do not all seek only power, glory and wealth and we do not all lack self-awareness. Arrogant, narcissistic and viewing themselves as extremely clever is far more common amongst the Muslim posters in the whyislam forums than amongst the non-Muslim posters, and yet it goes unchallenged by the few more reasonable Muslim posters.
I'll respond to your comment in another thread here:
What I'm saying, and which was stated in that thread on Soorah Al-Baqarah, is that the description of what makes a "Kaafir" is given vv.6-16. In those verses, it shows them as having no self awareness, destructive, and people who play politics, with no real convictions beyond a lust for power. It begins with Innal Ladheena Kafaroo in 2:6.
Let's examine this statement more closely.
I have asserted that in the context of 2:6, the word "Kafaroo" is relative to the preceding verses. We agree that the base of the word is "rejection" and so the context requires us to understand what is being rejected here. Other things might be rejected in other places in the Qur'an giving the word a different nuance in those places. That's how language works.
As I've pointed out, my view coincides with the tafsir of Maududi and that this verse is referring to the rejection of the beliefs listed in Q 2:2-4. In his notes, he lists the 6 conditions of belief that are foundational to Islam. There are some beliefs in this list which I unequivocally reject. Therefore, viewed in this way, I am included in the "they" of the subsequent verses. Not all non-Muslims have explicitly rejected some of these beliefs, so you are correct that not all non-Muslims are Rejectors, not yet. Until exposed to the beliefs of Islam, a person is neither a believer nor a disbeliever. I became a disbeliever the day I first read these verses.
I don't think we disagree on any of this, so far.
You claims that vv 6-16 define "Kaafir". I think you are referring specifically to 2:12 "it is they who are the corrupters", 2:13 "it is they who are the foolish" and 2:16 "those are the ones who have purchased error for guidance". You say: "It shows them as having..." certain anti-social qualities. Who is "them"? If "they" are the people with the qualities you list, your statement becomes "people with these anti-social qualities are people with anti-social qualities". Totally pointless.
No. "They" refers to those who reject the beliefs at the beginning of this Soorah, and then these verses have meaning, and a very poor meaning; one that is objectionable to those of us whom these verses accuse unfairly.
"I have asserted that in the context of 2:6, the word "Kafaroo" is relative to the preceding verses. We agree that the base of the word is "rejection" and so the context requires us to understand what is being rejected here. Other things might be rejected in other places in the Qur'an giving the word a different nuance in those places. That's how language works." (Non-Believer)
The context is there, right there in the text.
" As I've pointed out, my view coincides with the tafsir of Maududi and that this verse is referring to the rejection of the beliefs listed in Q 2:2-4. In his notes, he lists the 6 conditions of belief that are foundational to Islam. There are some beliefs in this list which I unequivocally reject. Therefore, viewed in this way, I am included in the "they" of the subsequent verses. Not all non-Muslims have explicitly rejected some of these beliefs, so you are correct that not all non-Muslims are Rejectors, not yet. Until exposed to the beliefs of Islam, a person is neither a believer nor a disbeliever. I became a disbeliever the day I first read these verses."
How you self-identify is your choice. The description we have given of "Kaafir" and its related words in this section of Soorah Al-Baqarah is is that Kaafir is clearly a term under which other terms would be placed, such as one who corrupts, oppressor and the like. Please read the article again.
This section is NOT the only place in which this is found. There are other places, such as in Soorah 8 and Soorah 9, which clearly shows Kufr as associated with great worldly crimes. In other words, it's more than simply saying someone is not a Muslim.
" You claims that vv 6-16 define "Kaafir". I think you are referring specifically to 2:12 "it is they who are the corrupters", 2:13 "it is they who are the foolish" and 2:16 "those are the ones who have purchased error for guidance". You say: "It shows them as having..." certain anti-social qualities. Who is "them"? If "they" are the people with the qualities you list, your statement becomes "people with these anti-social qualities are people with anti-social qualities". Totally pointless. " (NB's post)
It's not pointless. It is showing the characteristics of Kufr. The "Them" in the Soorah al Baqarah here need not be limited to the immediate opponents of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), but rather can be applied to any group, persons, at any time, in which they emerge as people with those characteristics and actions under their belts.
" No. "They" refers to those who reject the beliefs at the beginning of this Soorah, and then these verses have meaning, and a very poor meaning; one that is objectionable to those of us whom these verses accuse unfairly."
It's more than a theological issue. There are "Muslims", with Muslim names, who would fit under these descriptions. Look at the Soorah "And among people are those who proclaim belief in God and the final day, but they don't believe. They seek to deceive God and those of (real) faith, and they only deceive themselves and don't perceive it..." ( Q 2:9-10).
They adopt the customs of believers but their hearts are elsewhere. They adopt the speech of peacemakers yet they only bring forth destruction. (Q 2:10-13).
This is not the only place in the Qur'an where Kufr is associated with great crimes. There are other places. So the Qur'an is speaking in a much more broad way than it is generally imagined.
Waheed, I don't understand why you are persisting in a position which is clearly wrong. Maybe you are able to fool some people with this argument, but a reading of these verses in context and accompanied by a mainstream tafsir are sufficient to disprove your argument.
You've added Soorah 8 and 9 to support your position, some 200+ verses. Which do you think support your position?
I found 8:13-14 to support my position, where it clearly identifies opposition to Muhammad as sufficient justification for the most severe retribution. whoso opposes Allah and His Messenger, surely Allah is very severe for him in retribution
While on the subject of these verses, I would like to mention a thread that I started on whyislam. It concerned the phrase Allahawarasoolahu. Understanding that when Muhammad says "rasul", he is referring to himself, so this translates to "God and me." Just about anyone who believes in God sees such an expression associating themselves with God as the ultimate profanity. You and Shenango have complained about how I "insult" Muhammad, however, Muhammad is guilty of far worse in respect to my beliefs than I could ever be to yours.
Do you understand?
Hello NB,
With regards to your first statement, the Qur'an is not a book that can be understood by doing a quick glance and then going to Tafsir.com or a related website.
It takes time, patience, and deep study and contemplation of all its parts.
Regarding the identity ("characteristics" is a better term) of the Kaafir, Perhaps in the future-God willing- I will write a book on it, but in any case it is important to remember that the Qur'an is something which is-again- best understood in its own context. I added Soorah 8 and Nine, and have many notes on this, however it is too detailed to place in a single comment.The point is that we find in the Qur'an that "Kaafir" is associated with a variety of other attributes, qualities which have an evil application in the physical world, beyond simply "Non Muslim". I have explained how and why I understand the term "Kaafir" (and its related words), if you don't accept, that's fine.
With regards to your latter comments, the Prophet Muhammad made sure never to allow himself to be elevated to a Divine status. He instructed people to refer to him as "The Servant of God and His Messenger". He did not commission any self-portraits.
There are many other hadeeths which indicate this, and which also indicate the Prophet's humbleness (and may God's peace be on him) before God. The Qur'anic revelation instructs the Prophet to remind his audience "Say: I am a man, similar to yourselves". Another verse reads "say: I am nothing more than a man similar to yourselves'.
I have been thinking of writing a book on these sort of topics from the Qur'an, however if you are interested, there are writers who have reached interesting conclusions when it comes to- for example- the identity of "Kaafir" and "Mu'min" in the Qur'an, both inside the mainstream as well as within other circles of understanding.
Sh.Hamza Yusuf shares some thoughts on the meanings of "Islam" and "Imaan" which are relevant. The link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whf4yvgJ_ZE
For a deep study, one book that is relevant to this topic (although I admit not agreeing with all of his conclusions) is the work "Qur'an Liberation and Pluralism" by the South African scholar Farid Esack.
Hi Waheed,
I think that there is no dispute that Muhammad's circumstances changed dramatically from the time of the beginning of his "prophethood" through until his death. He went from an insignificant man preaching to a small number of people to a commander of an army of over 10000 men. With such changes comes many changes in personality. You cannot expect Muhammad to see himself in the same way once he became a powerful figure.
It is not inconsistent to see Muhammad as a humble man in Mecca and see him otherwise in Medina, nor, for that matter, for Muhammad to see himself very differently. It is interesting to examine the growth of Muhammad's self-esteem as his career progresses. In his early days, he was consumed by self-doubt. He, himself, questioned whether or not he was being visited by an angel or whether he was delusional.
Particularly noteworthy is his victory at Badr. You cite Soorah Al Anfal, his victory speech. It begins with his self-confident proclamation that decisions are to be made my "Allah and the Messenger". In it, we find this phrase (using "His Messenger") repeated many times. We can see how this victory has altered his self-esteem. We can see an egotism that was not present before this victory, and it is here where we see him directly threatening those who oppose him with Divine Retribution.
You cannot point to earlier verses to refute statements made about Muhammad's later period. The way he uses the word "kaafir" also changes at this time. Everything must be understood in the context of the moment. It troubles me how you are willing to disregard context when you cite verses in an attempt to counter reasonable arguments that I support with amply evidence.
I prefer to understand the Qur'an from the perspective of 7th Century Arabs, rather than from that of exegetes from centuries later. Muhammad spoke these words at a particular time and in a particular context. I wish to understand how these words were intended by Muhammad and how they were understood by those who heard them. The fact that you consider these to be "the words of God" and that you attempt to layer on hidden meanings to these simple words are a different subject and not what I'm attempting to understand right now.
In the Madinah period, the Prophet was still a humble man. He lived humbly and acted humbly. There are many recorded incidents which show that the Muslims (such as 'Umar Ibn Al-Khattab) were disturbed by this, by how people could approach him and even feel free to say harsh things to him, both within his family and even amongst Non Muslims.
However, the main issue we have been discussing is the Quranic usage of "Kaafir" and words which stem from it (the root being Kafara). In terms of how we have been explaining this term, I argue that the explanation we have been sharing falls within the realm of orthodoxy and, most importantly, in line with the Qur'an itself (as the principle is that the Qur'an is the first place to find out how to understand the Qur'an).
This post centers around verses from Soorah Al-Baqarah, complete with textual and contextual evidence, but more than that, the examples from Soorah Al-Baqarah have parallels within other Quranic chapters.
You mention your desire to understand the Qur'an as the seventh century Arabs understood it. That's a laudable goal, but keep in mind that there are-even in that age- differences of understanding, particularly in legal affairs.
If you are truly serious about this desire, know that the Qur'an has inspired a great many avenues of understanding and insight, and cannot be understood simply by having a five minute search of a tafseer website.
Non-Believer,
You seem to favor debate with Waheed in this thread, and elsewhere, and if that's the case, and you don't wish me to chime in, that's fine I'll respect that.
But your approach to the Prophet's biography is too simplistic. Trust me when I say that you're not the first intelligent critic of Islam to propose this theory that the Prophet (PBUH) played nice while he was weak and powerless in Mecca to the non-believers, but then changed tact as he grew powerful in Medina. No doubt you find me to be an arrogant prick for swatting down your personal, critical exploration of the Qur'an, but this isn't coming just from my personal experience (though I have plenty of that as well).
If it was possible to draw such a clear, simple conclusion about the Prophet's biography, Islam's critics would have done it centuries ago. But as with everything else in life, things aren't that simple. For example, be sure to take a look at Surahs 19 and 43, for example, for some pretty harsh words and threats for the disbelieving pagans of Mecca. The only problem is that these surahs were revealed while the Prophet (PBUH) was still powerless in Mecca, the former surah is particularly early, we know for example the early Muslim refugees to Abyssinia recited them to its ruler circa 615 CE. That means those verses were around already by then, only two years after the Prophet (PBUH) started preaching Islam openly.
If things were that simple to explain, how do you explain these harsh verses coming at a time when the Prophet (PBUH) was still powerless? It's this contradicting evidence (that you seem oblivious to) that has prevented scholars who came before you who have researched this stuff from writing conclusive books on the subject. Criticism of Islam goes back a long way...the first major critic was the Christian John of Damascus circa 750 CE, followed by Nicetas of Byzantium in the 800's CE who gave a thorough critique of the Qur'an. Muslims have seen and heard these critiques over the centuries. What really gets me is why you are thoughtlessly merely parroting their questions without first questioning as to why they weren't able to reach any definitive conclusions? What gets me is why you think you're going to succeed where they've failed long before you. If that's not a mark of hubris, I don't know what is.
The bottom line is that Islam has been around 15 centuries, and if there was anything close to a 'smoking gun' it would have been found and preached like the gospel by now. I mean this in the humblest way possible, but do you ever ponder these things before you go asking?
Regarding the word "Kafir" and its various forms in the Qur'an, Waheed is correct that the word is used in a variety of contexts, from certain Jews who wouldn't obey their pre-Islamic prophets (Q5:78), to Muslims themselves (Q3:97) to everyone in between. On occasion, "Kufr" (Disbelief) is actually a GOOD (<--you did read that right!) thing, in Q2:256 for example.
Finally, regarding the phrase "Whoever disobeys God and His messenger", yes, that would be disgusting coming from the Prophet (PBUH) himself. The rub is that YOU believe that is being said by the Prophet, but WE don't believe that, as the Qur'an is the literal word of God. The Prophet's own words on record in the Hadith don't have usage like this; they are altogether different. If you want to prove your point, then put your money where your mouth is, and post a hadith where the Prophet (PBUH) does employ that sort of language.
Don't leave us holding our breath too long.
Hi Shenango. Let's unwrap this from the bottom up.
"yes, that would be disgusting coming from the Prophet (PBUH) himself. "
Thank you. You have just validated what I have been saying for a couple of years. I find parts of the Qur'an "disgusting", and you've acknowledged that anyone who does not believe in the prophethood of Muhammad would similarly find it disgusting. Is it at all surprising that there are people who would burn a Qur'an? I used to be appalled by such behaviour, but now I understand it, and you should too.
I don't know what the relevance of the Hadith is. These were collected much later and maybe the Persian scholars who collected them chose to portray a different image of Muhammad. That's a whole other issue.
I think we are in agreement on how words are used in the Qur'an and we are both in opposition to Waheed's position. My point is precisely that: the word "kafir" does not have the same meaning in every instance. In some instances, Muhammad is very clear about what constitutes "disbelief". As a general statement, when directed towards the Meccans, Muhammad is referring to disbelief in Allah. However, when directed towards the Jews, this wouldn't make sense since the Jews also believed in God in the same way. In the Surah under discussion, Muhammad extends the requirements of "belief" to include belief in his prophethood and his book; now the Jews were disbelievers. This also makes me into a disbeliever and into an object of Muslim scorn.
You can accuse me of whatever nonsense you like, but your many-before-you-have-tried argument works both way. If Islam was so definitively "the Truth", why would you think you're going to succeed in persuading me when Muslims have been unable to persuade the non-Muslim world for around 15 centuries. I'm not "parroting" anything. I'm asking the obvious questions and seeing how you fail to answer them, even though Muslims have had all these centuries to come up with clear, unambiguous answers.
I don't know what your point is concerning Surahs 19 and 43. These are filled with admonitions to obey Allah or face destruction. That is entirely different from "whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger" faces destruction, especially knowing how those who were threatened in this way were soon destroyed by Muhammad and his army. That's the difference I'm talking about. In the Meccan period, Muhammad speaks of himself as one of many messengers and points to the Divine Retribution that came to people who didn't listen to these messengers. Once he has power, he seldom uses "messengers" in the plural and uses "Allah and His Messenger" instead. Isn't this obvious?
And I'm not proposing a theory about the change in Muhammad's status and capability, I'm merely stating what Muslims have recorded in their history. I don't understand what is so controversial about saying that Muhammad went from being persecuted to being the one doing the persecution and that the language of the Qur'an shifted as Muhammad's power increased. One month he's decrying those who expelled him from Mecca and a few months later, he's expelling an entire tribe from Medina.
And, dude, don't imagine for a second that you've "swatted down my exploration of the Qur'an". Surely, you must have figured out by now that I view an argument based on your belief in Muhammad's prophethood as an argument founded on a fallacy and therefore without any merit whatsoever?
Non-Believer,
I'm pretty sure that I didn't intend to go as far as you've given me credit for. I think you took what I said and jumped off the deep end with it. So let's drag you out of the pool and dry you off while I clarify.
In the Meccan period, Muhammad speaks of himself as one of many messengers and points to the Divine Retribution that came to people who didn't listen to these messengers. Once he has power, he seldom uses "messengers" in the plural and uses "Allah and His Messenger" instead. Isn't this obvious?
No, it isn't obvious, and these verses revealed in Medina AFTER the Prophet (PBUH) gained power are sufficient to destroy your point:
"Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengerS and Gabriel and Michael - then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers." Qur'an 2:98
"The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say, "We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination." Qur'an 2:285
"Indeed, those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengerS and wish to discriminate between Allah and His messengerS and say, "We believe in some and disbelieve in others," and wish to adopt a way in between" Qur'an 4:150
Nuff said?
As a general statement, when directed towards the Meccans, Muhammad is referring to disbelief in Allah. However, when directed towards the Jews, this wouldn't make sense since the Jews also believed in God in the same way. In the Surah under discussion, Muhammad extends the requirements of "belief" to include belief in his prophethood and his book; now the Jews were disbelievers.
You're partially right, mainly about the call to the pagans versus the call to the Jews, but the Prophet (PBUH) wasn't 'extending' anything. The Qur'an was merely including him among the set of prophets...the Jews had long been required to believe in all of them. This is not something the Jews were disputing: they understood that belief in God entailed belief in all of his prophets. That's why the Qur'an calls them out on it as repeating the mistakes of the Jews who came before them who rejected some of their prophets, while accepting others. See Q5:70 for example, along with 5:78-80, in which David and Jesus as prophets curse the Jews who would not heed their calls as disbelievers. You can compare these verses to Jesus' call to them in Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 in the Bible for nice similarity.
The Qur'an sees the rejection of Muhammad (PBUH) as a prophet by the Medinan Jews much in the same vein as the Jews' legacy of prior rejection of their prophets. Their rejection of Muhammad (PBUH) is just an 'extension' or continuation of that shameful historical legacy, as made clear by Q5:78-80.
Study the three verses I quoted in the previous paragraph (2:98, 2:285, 4:150) closely. Belief in God entails belief in all of his messengers according to the Qur'an, Muhammad (PBUH) included! The Jews are not allowed to only accept Moses (AS), but to reject Jesus and Muhammad (AS). They have to believe in them all, as does all of mankind (hence, Islam)...
...I don't understand what is so controversial about saying that Muhammad went from being persecuted to being the one doing the persecution and that the language of the Qur'an shifted as Muhammad's power increased. One month he's decrying those who expelled him from Mecca and a few months later, he's expelling an entire tribe from Medina.
You don't understand, no kidding! There's a word of difference there, buddy. When the Muslims were persecuted and expelled from Mecca they were peacefully calling on their relatives and neighhors (the Quraish) to worship one God and reject polytheism, something the Qur'an considers a noble aim/mission. The Jews of Medina, on the other hand, took up arms in hostility against the Muslims and allied with the Muslims' enemies after they had promised to jointly defend the city against outside attackers. They committed high treason, dude, the modern equivalent of taking up arms against your own country. That's not the same!!!!! *JAW DROPPED* :O
I don't know what the relevance of the Hadith is. These were collected much later and maybe the Persian scholars who collected them chose to portray a different image of Muhammad. That's a whole other issue.
No kidding, spoken like a true amateur. We tell you that you're ignorant of Islam and lack a basic proper understanding, and you get angry with us. You cannot understand Islam or Muslims without understanding Hadith. The earliest complete Hadith manuscripts dont' actually post-date the earliest complete Qur'ans that we have. Sure, to you, both the Qur'an and Hadith are the composition of Muhammad (PBUH), so why not just focus on the primary text?
It doesn't work that way my friend. To us, the Qur'an is the literal word of God. That's what it itself says. It describes things that the Prophet (PBUH) could not possibly have known. On some occasions the Qur'an chides and even criticizes Muhammad (PBUH). Hadith doesn't do that. Do you realize that it makes us chuckle at you when you write stuff like "In the Qur'an Muhammad says"? The Qur'an is the broad brush strokes of Muslim life, Hadith is the detailed instruction manual. Hadith is much more normative for everyday Muslim life, the Qur'an is just broad outlines...
...Hadith (and by extension the Sirah which provides overall context) collected the Prophet's teachings, actions and sanctions. Unlike the Qur'an, it is very explicit and detailed and provides the details that tells us what the Qur'an was talking about it in its day. It's those juicy details that you are unwittingly exploiting to raise your arguments with us. Without Hadith you wouldn't have any of those details at your perusal.
The major reason that you get frustrated with Waheed and I is that you approach the Qur'an as if it was the personal will and testament of Muhammad (PBUH). It's not. The Prophet (PBUH) is just one of a cast of characters, and his name only appears in its text a mere five (5) times from start to finish. In the Qur'an the Prophet is not himself the story, but he's subordinated as part of a bigger historical story: God is always at the center. See the toweringly important verse Q3:144, for example, which talks about the Prophet (PBUH) being killed or dying. The Qur'an is much bigger than the Prophet (PBUH). When we try to tell you that your presumptions and approach to this text are wrong and are the chief cause of your misunderstandings and consequent frustration, such as above vis-a-vis the Jews/pagans/disbelief, you get mad at us.
Hadith, by comparison, shifts to the Prophet (PBUH) as the central/starring character. That's where his message truly comes out in his vernacular speech, and you can glimpse his personal thinking process and modes of expression and reactions of his followers and enemies. It is altogether different than the Qur'an, so don't expect to have much success or very little frustration trying to read the Qur'an like the Hadith.
Hello N.B.
" hank you. You have just validated what I have been saying for a couple of years. I find parts of the Qur'an "disgusting", and you've acknowledged that anyone who does not believe in the prophethood of Muhammad would similarly find it disgusting. Is it at all surprising that there are people who would burn a Qur'an? I used to be appalled by such behaviour, but now I understand it, and you should too." (quote from N.B.)
Perhaps you won't believe this, but I have spent many years in personal discussions with Non Muslim scholars, theologians, and in terms of those who know the Qur'an pretty well (even though they are not Muslims), none of them find it "disgusting". Perhaps you should become better acquainted with it, and more than simply for polemical reasons.
" I think we are in agreement on how words are used in the Qur'an and we are both in opposition to Waheed's position. My point is precisely that: the word "kafir" does not have the same meaning in every instance. In some instances, Muhammad is very clear about what constitutes "disbelief". As a general statement, when directed towards the Meccans, Muhammad is referring to disbelief in Allah. However, when directed towards the Jews, this wouldn't make sense since the Jews also believed in God in the same way. In the Surah under discussion, Muhammad extends the requirements of "belief" to include belief in his prophethood and his book; now the Jews were disbelievers. This also makes me into a disbeliever and into an object of Muslim scorn." ( quote from NB)
From the Islamic perspective, it is important to accept all of what God has conveyed in terms of Prophets and Messengers. This is not an unusual teaching. Shenango in his reply to you shared some examples from the New Testament as well. As for "object of Muslim scorn", I must ask- why do you speak in such dramatic terms? It seems you scorn Muslims, atleast online, more than any Muslim has ever done to you, unless you tell us differently.
Religion does not need to be the source of enmity with anyone.
Shenango, Thank you for your long response. I have been very busy with work this past week. I hope to find time to respond soon.
Waheed, "disgusting" was the word chosen by Shenango, not by me. If you have an issue with that word, then I suggest you take it up with him. Why is it that the two of you never comment on each other's posts?
Perhaps "scorn" wasn't the best word, but we find even in his most recent post that Shenango says that he "chuckles" at me. You have just said that it is important to accept what God has conveyed in terms of Muhammad. I don't accept this, so what are you saying about me?
Finally, you claim to have discussed contentious verses with non-Muslim scholars. I have watched your videos of interfaith discussions and you always navigated your way around these issues. I have already criticized you for not being more forthright about how Islam views Christianity when you were speaking at Grace in the Desert. Also, there was an incident when a Muslim was invited to speak in a church at Easter and the speaker chose to recite polemical verses from Surah Maryam, causing an uproar within the congregation. There have been reports of Imams reciting a highly offensive Hadith describing rocks that point out Jews for Muslims to slaughter. And so on...
Please be honest and admit that there are Islamic texts that are highly offensive (or "disgusting", to use Shenango's word) to certain non-Muslims.
How is it "polemical" of me to demand that you be honest about what is in these texts. You can't distract me with other texts that say something else.
Non-Believer,
I never used, and would never agree to anyone using the word "disgusting" to describe any part of the Qur'an or anything regarding it. That was all you. I only agreed certain statements about disobeying the messenger and God WOULD BE disgusting HAD THEY BEEN COMING FROM THE PROPHET HIMSELF. Needless to say that WE DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE COMING FROM THE PROPHET HIMSELF, AND HENCE NOT DISGUISTING. You twisted my words and ran off the deep end with them, which I called you out on for doing. Now what YOU did IS disgusting. You owe me an apology and rectification of matters before we continue any discussion.
The Qur'an can only ever be misunderstood, NEVER disgusting. Get that part right and have it on the record.
I don't know what you are all bent out of shape over, Shenango. You have made it clear, not that I didn't understand already, that we have a difference in perspective on the Qur'an based on a difference in belief about its origin. You acknowledged that people holding my beliefs could have a problem with the phrase "Whoever disobeys God and His messenger", saying, "that would be disgusting coming from the Prophet (PBUH) himself." I have not twisted your words.
However, Waheed claims that no knowledgeable person that he knows finds this or any portion of Islamic texts "disgusting". He is surely mistaken.
As for "misunderstanding" the Qur'an, how the Qur'an is understood depends on, among other things, what you assume about its origin. You cannot accuse me of "misunderstanding" the Qur'an simply because I don't accept your belief in its origin. We will understand it differently. Even within this division, there will be differences in understanding. Not all non-Muslims will understand the Qur'an the way I do nor do all Muslims understand the Qur'an the way you do. Nevertheless, we should be able to have calm discussions about our differences in understanding. For all of us, our understanding changes as we learn more.
Shenango, I may circle back to other points in your response, but I would like to begin with this "Sure, to you, both the Qur'an and Hadith are the composition of Muhammad (PBUH), so why not just focus on the primary text?"
I'm pretty sure I've never suggested that this is what I think.
Understand that I'm not bound by religious convention to presume that all of these texts come from a single author. This is how I view these sources:
The evidence that the Qur'an comes from Muhammad seems convincing to me, however, that doesn't preclude the possibility that verses were added or altered during its compilation. Religious arguments about the preservation of the Qur'an are extremely weak. As an aside, both you and Waheed have said that there are verses which criticize Muhammad. Which verses are these?
The Hadith, on the other hand, seem to come from many sources. I'm skeptical that many of the Hadith that are posted in the whyislam Hadith of the Day forum are from Muhammad. There are many factors that contribute to this doubt.
Since I view the Hadith as a compilation of texts from many sources, you don't see me criticizing Hadith in the same way as the Qur'an. From my perspective, the Hadith are, at the same time, full of wisdom and full of nonsense. There is no reason why someone with intellectual curiosity should approach the Hadith with an "all or nothing" approach. Just as with the Bible, there are parts that I admire and also parts that I reject.
Many times, I have asked you to cite verses from the Qur'an that I might find meaningful. I'm still waiting. However, this is certainly not the case with Hadith.
You can go on giving credit to Muhammad for everything that is Islam. However, my view is that much credit belongs to the Persians. This was a mature and sophisticated culture when the Arab Imperialists showed and continued in that way even after that. The Persians were among the most advanced civilization at that time and this shows through in the Persian Hadith collections and in the Persian schools.
Muhammad was neither mature nor sophisticated, and this is how I see the Qur'an. In the words of Thomas Carlyle: "A wearisome confused jumble, crude, incondite; endless iterations, long-windedness, entanglement; most crude, incondite; - insupportable stupidity, in short! Nothing but a sense of duty could carry any European through the Koran."
Non-Believer,
The evidence that the Qur'an comes from Muhammad seems convincing to me
Well, no, not unless you want to take issue with what it actually says. The Qur'an claims numerous times to be directly from God, not a composition of the Prophet (PBUH). Parts of the Qur'an would have been difficult to come by the Prophet (PBUH) or anyone of his era. For example, Q3:44 plainly says "You were not with them, when they cast lots with their pens as to which of them should be charged with the care of Maryam (Mary)" where "You" refers to the Prophet (PBUH). I mean it's witnessing to events that happened long before his birth.
Same thing with the private dialogue between Pharaoh and his chief architect, Haman, in Q28:34. Haman's name was lost to history with the collapse of ancient Egyptian civilizan and is unknown to Jews and Christians. It neither appears in the Bible nor the Talmud. It wasn't re-discovered until the Rosetta Stone made possible the deciphering of hieroglyphics in modern times.
Similarly the Qur'an speaks of the heavens and the earth being one matter until they were cleaved apart (Big Bang theory), and all life originating in the water (Q21:30), and alludes to the antiseptic properties of bees' honey (Q16:69). We take this modern science for granted now, but these would have been difficult for an illiterate 7th century desert shepherd with no formal schooling to figure out.
Then there's this verse (Q29:48): "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." The "you", 2nd word, there is Muhammad (PBUH). Who composes a book like this? Would you write in this fashion? Would you chastise yourself in your own book that you claimed was from God, as the Prophet (PBUH) is criticized in Q87:1-4?
Get real man. That's all I have to say. The Qur'an has, in the words of one of its non-Muslim admirers, Lesley Hazelton an "otherwordliness" to it. You would not expect God, being so different from us, to literally communicate in exactly the same fashion we do. That's what Carlyle was too dense to appreciate...
On the other hand, your outright dismissal of Hadith is as misguided as it is uninformed. The six major collections passed down to us were all collected by Persian scholars, yes, because by their time the scholarly methodology of vetting the sayings and categorizing them had been developed, but these collections themselves rely on earlier, cruder ones with same content collected by Arab collectors closer to the Prophet's lifetime. A Hadith's chain of narrators does not mean it is coming from different sources. Rather, that's a testament to its veracity if it has been related through different chains of narrators. Your misunderstanding is truly fundamental and you owe it to yourself to become educated. A hadith collector is just that, he isn't composing anything, but just verifying, categorizing and publishing what the Prophet (PBUH) said. It's not something I can personally do for you, there would simply be too much for me to teach you.
The Qur'an too has a chain of transmitters if you think about it, but its chains of transmission are so in agreement and numerous that we don't bother to mention them. That doesn't mean it originates from multiple sources. Hadith doesn't either.
But the Qur'an remains an "otherworldly" text, amazing in its depth and density, and occasionally very difficult to understand. It is composed in sweeping, lofty formal Arabic that is easy to memorize because its verses often rhyme. It's like poetry, which is by its nature deep, and often difficult to understand without reflection. Hadith, however, is the Prophet (PBUH) in his vernacular, so that's where you see his mind. Judge his sophistication and maturity based on that, I''m certain you won't be disappointed.
Trying to figure someone out based on what you think is their deep poetry (as you believe the Qur'an to be Muhammad's composition) rather than a vernacular speech of theirs strikes me as lacking either some basic common sense or a fundamental understanding of the nature of the subject matter. The Qur'an is like a work of art, you have to ponder, study and reflect on it, and so in that strict sense is like a "product" or an artist's masterpiece painting. There's all these purposeful complex relationships between verses that have to be teased out. It's much like staring at a Rembrandt at a museum, up, down and sideways. On the other hand, Hadith just lays it out in plain language, no artistry, just speaking from the gut if you will, though there you will see that the Prophet (PBUH) had a special gift for wisdom and conciseness in his speech. There's no way as a student I could ever prefer to study the former, rather than the latter, because what I desire is ease of understanding. If it's the Prophet (PBUH) you actually care to study, I can't understand your approach for the life of me.
I'm not truly hopeful you'll ever explore Hadith, but a studied comparison of the Prophet's words there and the Qur'an can teach you the differences and demonstrate to you the truth of what I'm saying about the incorrectness of your approach to the Qur'an...
But I don't want to veer too off-topic into a discussion of Hadith. The whole reason I brought up the difference was because of your grave misunderstanding of verses that offended you with language about disobeying "God and the Messenger". I told you that Hadith, the Prophet's vernacular, doesn't contain language like this, and my challenge still remains on the table for you to come up with a hadith where the Prophet (PBUH) talks that way of himself. If you can't meet that challenge, then your homework assignment is to go figure out why.
In the Qur'an the Prophet (PBUH) is just an object, being driven by a divine vehicle with an overarching grand scheme of which he's just a part. The text does read like that if you reflect on it carefully (which again, you won't likely do). But we believe that text to be authored by God, who as the master and ruler of the universe, owns all pride and has the right to speak about Himself and his prophet in any matter that He so wishes. Do you understand now?
The Prophet (PBUH) himself, as God's slave, was much more humble in his vernacular speech in Hadith and did not speak of himself like this. What does that tell you?
See, it's hard when confronted with these differences to still hang on to the belief that Muhammad (PBUH) was the author of the Qur'an. And that's the point I'm ultimately trying to get you to see.
Shenango, there are many points that I would like to respond to, but I will focus on just one, which is also most relevant to the original post.
Both you and Waheed have made the claim that the Qur'an is too critical of Muhammad to have been written by him. (Which verses?) I can use the same argument to show that the Qur'an could not be from Allah.
Since you believe that Allah is the designer of all things including man, man's behaviour is a direct consequence of His design. All of the monotheistic religious acknowledge the sinfulness of man; it is how man was designed by Allah. If Allah had willed it, man would not be sinful.
So how is it possible for Allah to criticise ("call out", as you say) man for his sins? If you owned a car that stalled unless you controlled the accelerator in a very precise way, would you blame the driver or the designer? Since no man is capable of going through life without sin, then that is how we were designed. All those sins that are mentioned in Surah Al-Baqarah and in so many other chapters are inevitable consequences of how we were designed to act as human beings.
By criticising all those people: the polytheists, the Jews, the Christians, the Hypocrites, even devoting a chapter to the condemnation of an individual, Allah is criticising His own Creation and His own failure to provide effective guidance.
Would Allah criticise Himself in this way? Surely not.
Non-Believer,
I already gave you an example of a passage critical of the Prophet (PBUH) in my last post, Q87:1-4. Such passages are not the primary reason we believe the Qur'an to be from God, but they're what you can call secondary supports.
As relates to your second point, Islam teaches that mankind was created inherently good, but weak over sin. It's not that we're not incapable of not sinning, it's just that we're prone to error and consequently falter frequently in a practical sense. The Qur'an says God could have created a race of angels if He had wished. This means he gave man free will with the expectation that he would falter occasionally. The challenge for us is to try to do right. The test is in the battle, but God isn't expecting perfection. This does not make God directly responsible for the sins we commit. That doesn't mean we can sin freely, either.
You come from a Christian background, and I frequently hear this comparison made, but the fact is Islam is different than Christianity, for which man's inherent sinfulness is something he cannot overcome. He is basically a slave to sin, and so God has to react by sending his Son to die as an atoning sacrifice. It's like an afterthought and God has to come to the rescue. In Islam, there is no reactiveness, no need for rescue. Man's sin is something God had planned for from the very beginning, and he had a wisdom in rendering it thus.
God never fails us, and has provided us all the guidance we need, if we would only seek it out and heed it half the time. But that's the trial of life, the struggle of goodness against evil. It is reflective of the reality we see around us every day. We see examples of success, and examples of failure. But it's a mixed bag, not black and white.
Hi Shenango.
Q 87:1-4 This one? Exalt the name of your Lord, the Most High, Who created and proportioned And Who destined and [then] guided And who brings out the pasture And [then] makes it black stubble.
My Christian background? Don't be silly. The Jesus sacrifice hooey was never pushed on me. Get real.
You say: Man's sin is something God had planned for from the very beginning, and he had a wisdom in rendering it thus. and I am saying much the same thing in different words. Sinfulness is evidently part of man's fundamental nature and, seen from a Darwinian perspective (no, not Christian, d'oh!), sinful people are evidently more fit to survive. This is the conundrum that I wrestle with. I wish I could accept your simplistic theistic rationalisation of this obvious truth, but doing so would suppress true intellectual investigation into this surprising phenomenon. Unfortunately, facile religious explanations continue to impede our understanding of our real nature.
But you dodged my main point: Since mankind is behaving exactly how Allah "planned for from the very beginning", why would the Qur'an criticise those who behaved as expected? It's like getting angry with a crying baby.
It makes no sense that verses like that would come from Allah; yet, it makes perfect sense that they would come from Muhammad.
Non-Believer,
I apologize, the quoted verses should have been Q80:1-4, not Q87:1-4, that's my typo.
You still use the word "sinful" to describe mankind. You may not have had Christianity pushed on you, but that is certainly a Christian-underpinned view of the world. There is no such thing as "sinfulness". Man is not sinful in Islam, rather he is good, but weak. Weakness is not the same thing as sinfulness. Weak people commit sins, but there's still room there to struggle against sin and win occasionally. The term "sinfulness" on the other hand implies some sort of helplessness/hopelessness...exactly like your example of a baby crying. Please don't make me explain this a third time for you.
Shenango, don't try to make a point over my choice of a word when I'm sure you understand what I mean. I do not use these words in a religious sense.
Look at the unbelievably cruel behaviour that man is capable of. He kills, he tortures, he robs honest men, he watches while others suffer, and on and on and on. You are happy to justify the murder of men at Nakhlah, assassinations of opponents, expulsions of entire tribes from Medina, a genocide, plunder and torture at Khaybar, captured women being forced into marriage, and on and on.
This is not a pretty picture. It is surely "sinful".
(synonyms: immoral, wicked, wrong, morally wrong, wrongful, evil, bad, iniquitous, corrupt, ungodly, godless, unholy, irreligious, unrighteous, sacrilegious, profane, blasphemous, impious, irreverent, criminal, nefarious, depraved, degenerate, perverted, erring, fallen, impure, sullied, tainted; rare peccable)
And after the time of Muhammad, was his message effective? No, not at all. There was civil war, there were more assassinations, there was pillaging of neighbouring towns, invasions of neighbouring civilizations and so on.
If you don't want to call this "sinfulness" then choose a different word for it. I'm talking about the brutality that man has inflicted on man for as long as we have known.
This is much more than "weakness". It is evidently part of our fundamental nature, and we have seen that 20 centuries of Christianity and 14 centuries of Islam have not been able to change anything.
In this Surah, we have to understand what is the point of reminding the Jews of "their rebellion against God" that happened over 1000 years earlier, some of the incidents nearly 2000 years before. You have to also remember that during the intervening time the Jews had re-thought Judaism and compiled the Talmud.
So I ask you again, does it make any sense for these criticisms of the Jews to come from Allah, issues from thousands of years before for which the Jews have sought redemption (or whatever non-religious word you might prefer) through study and fully understanding their scriptures?
I don't know if the Medinan Jews were educated in the Talmud, but it is pretty obvious that the unread prophet was not. Any criticism of the Jews by Allah would have targeted their religious principles of that time, not something that happened long, long before.
Also, it is interesting to compare the tone of Surah 2, before Badr, with Surah 3, after Badr. Muhammad's progression is obvious to those who are willing to see.
Tell me again why these words could not have been from Muhammad, himself?
Non-Believer,
Ok, so when you employ a term like "sinful" that is a term that can only be inherently understood in a religious context. It took religion to give that term meaning. It has no meaning in a secular context. But no, sinfulness, or rebellion against God is not in man's nature (and I recognize this is in direct opposition to what Christianity teaches, but that is Islamic teaching).
Regarding the Jews, the Qur'an isn't reminding them of anything ancient, no not at all. The shameful Jewish legacy of rejection of God's prophets carries on for thousands of years, but for the Qur'an, it is just picking up where things were left off. Muslims don't believe there was any prophet sent to the world by God after Jesus (PBUH) and before Muhammad (PBUH). The vast majority of Jews had rejected Jesus (PBUH) 600 years earlier, including the forefathers of the Medinan Jews who were likely exiles of the resulting diaspora after the destruction of the second temple by the Romans in 70 CE. So like I said, the Qur'an is picking up with the Jews where they left off with Jesus (PBUH) 600 years earlier.
Yes, these particular Jews in Medina weren't around in Jerusalem 600 years earlier, but they are their descendants. They don't represent the entire Jewish population of the world at the time, nor even a sizeable portion of it, but the message to the rest of the Jewish World would nonetheless have been the same: this is God's new prophet, you have to accept him. The Prophet (PBUH) was reported to have told the Jews that if they didn't find him prophesied (predicted) in their scriptures that they were off-the-hook from having to believe in him. So you have to understand the Islamic concept of continuity of the messengers. It's like they pass the torch, one each to the other.
The last prophet (PBUH) came in Mecca/Medina, and thus the Qur'an appeals to the Jewish community that he encountered not to repeat the mistakes of their forefathers in rejecting God's prophets, and to accept this last one. After the destruction of the second temple and the Exile, some Jews may have repented of their ancestors' ways, but without a new covenant to replace their broken one, they were hanging out in limbo.
Islam was that new covenant, and Muhammad (PBUH) was the messenger who brought it. The Jews of Medina were privileged to be the first Jewish community in the world to be invited into this new covenant with God (and which is actually open to all mankind).
Shenango, at this point I must take the advice of Iman al-Shafi'i.
" Waheed, "disgusting" was the word chosen by Shenango, not by me. If you have an issue with that word, then I suggest you take it up with him. Why is it that the two of you never comment on each other's posts?
Perhaps "scorn" wasn't the best word, but we find even in his most recent post that Shenango says that he "chuckles" at me. You have just said that it is important to accept what God has conveyed in terms of Muhammad. I don't accept this, so what are you saying about me?" (N.B. quote)
Hello N.B.
Time and interest dictates how and what I reply to. Indeed, your query here was made over a month ago.
In terms of your latter question, why do you make things so personal? It's frankly not my business if you believe in Muhammad as God's Prophet or not. Similarly, it's not my business if you even believe in God. Our purpose here is to share information that mostly relates to Islam and the Qur'an. We don't harass people or throw religion down people's throats.
" Finally, you claim to have discussed contentious verses with non-Muslim scholars. I have watched your videos of interfaith discussions and you always navigated your way around these issues. I have already criticized you for not being more forthright about how Islam views Christianity when you were speaking at Grace in the Desert"
Our lives are not lived in front of a camera. What I mean by that is that as human beings, there are interactions in which people of different perspectives can discuss things like this, as human beings, and not in front of an audience.
In terms of your remarks about that presentation, I have already shared my thoughts on that, in that thread, so there's no need to rehash that.
No, Waheed, I'm not taking anything "personally". I'm simply pointing out to you how people might react to the sort of rhetoric that some Muslims resort to. You take the time to respond to me, but your words are worthless when they follow Shenango's outrageous post, a post so vile that I couldn't find a way to respond. I am not the one you need to persuade; you need to address Muslims whose message is far more persuasive than yours and that is counteracting what you are trying to say. My view of Islam did not come out of nowhere and it did not come from some ill informed Islamophobic site. It is a reaction to the posts of Muslims "whose purpose is to share information". I don't feel harassed and I wouldn't care if you tried to throw your religion down my throat.
You should not makes things personal. I am honestly trying to help you to make your outreach more effective by pointing out to you how some of your ideas, which may seem very reasonable from your perspective, are not at all welcome by some who are coming from a different place. If you weren't so defensive, you might learn something from me. That is my hope and purpose in posting here.
Hello NB,
If you are trying to be helpful, please consider the other parties too. You have been posting on here for a long time, in fact you are the most consistent person to post, but even then, you sometimes not only say insulting things about the religion or the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, but you sometimes say insulting things about me.
I think Shenango was trying to point out these sorts of things to you in your most recent interaction, but for some reason you chose not to see it from his point of view and basically insisted on the same format and rhetoric.
I do have ideas and seek to share them, and I don't mind healthy and vigorous debates, be it with Muslims or Non Muslims, but at the end of the day I'm not in a popularity contest.
What I mean by that is that I share- that's it. I share, and the reader can either agree or disagree with whatever was shared. It's okay. I am a firm believer in God, who says in the Qur'an that he will-in his own time and schedule-make known the realities of whatever disputes that used to take place. I am also a firm believer in God's provision, I have seen it in my own life, despite the hatred of those who chose to have hatred, but I also have seen it in the Quranic scripture itself.
Meaning, the Qur'an says "Did He (God) not find you ( Muhammad) alone (yateem) and give you support? And found you lost, and gave you guidance? And found you in hardships, and gave you independence" ( Q 93:6-8).
So God will conceal what He wants to conceal, and broadcast whatever He wills to be public.
Hi Waheed. I, too, am sharing what I believe and you can either agree or disagree with whatever was shared. If what I believe insults Muhammad or Islam, then I don't know what I can do about it. At all times, I try to speak to what we each believe, the implications of those beliefs and being honest about those implications.
From a theological perspective, I do not belief that God speaks directly to individual people. This has implications to how I view religions which are based on such communications.
For example, I would never celebrate a man who thought God was commanding him to murder his son whether he carried out the murder or not. Sadly, some children have been murdered by a parent in this way, and we should make no excuses for it. Is this insulting to Judaism and Islam?
I'm sure you'll admit that people today who earnestly claim to be hearing the voice of God or of an angel are delusional. So the only difference between us is the time and place. I say that this was always delusional but you believe that there were exceptions but, since the final prophet, the time for hearing such voices has past. Is it insulting to Muhammad and Islam that I believe that Muhammad was delusional? Is it insulting that I insist that you are in no position to judge that some hearers of voice are prophets and some are not? Is it insulting for me to accuse Muhammad of criminal conduct when he chose to annihilate a tribe who insisted that he was delusional?
You say that you're not forcing your beliefs down our throats but you say nothing when Shenango writes "this is God's new prophet, you have to accept him" as justification for the Jews' destruction.
You quote Q 93:6-8, but how many have faced the same persecution as Muhammad, and worse, and not been given independence? How many social reformers (yes, I do accept that Muhammad was genuinely trying to make the world a better place) have rotted away in prisons, or been murdered.
I see no value in a theology that postulates a God who behaves in ways that we can never understand. What can we apply from such a theology? How does such a theology allow you to judge who is rightly guided and who is misguided? How can you say with certainty that Muhammad was a prophet of truth and not sent as a test, a test that the Jews of Medina passed?
With such a theology how do you decide who to listen to? It must be His will that brought me to this blog. How do you determine that His purpose isn't for me to guide you back to the straight path? You recite Al-Fatihah every day. How do you know that He hasn't sent me in answer to your supplications?
I'm just sharing my views from a theological perspective.
Non-Believer,
You say that you're not forcing your beliefs down our throats but you say nothing when Shenango writes "this is God's new prophet, you have to accept him" as justification for the Jews' destruction.
I'm getting rather tired of you continuing to insist that the Jews of Medina were destroyed for their disbelief in the Prophet (PBUH) without posting any evidence in support of your claim. You don't get to re-interpret history at your leisure or will and still carry on a discussion. There is a difference between theological rivalry/disbelief and political opposition/treachery.
You'd probably be shocked to know that Jewish-Muslim relations in Medina were not hostile prior to the Jewish tribes' treachery during the siege. Groups of Muslims would sometimes listen to the Jews recite the Torah, and a group of Jews even accepted the Prophet's religious verdict that two Jewish adulterers should be stoned. They never accepted him as a Prophet (PBUH) as a whole, though some among them converted. The Prophet (PBUH) for his part lived next to a Jewish neighbor who used to throw his refuse at his doorstep daily. When the Prophet (PBUH) went inquired about the man's missing trash one morning, and went to visit him on learning that he had fallen ill, the man believed in him, not in the least because of his shame. This story is taught as inspirational to Muslims worldwide, as it was taught to me as a youngster as an example of the model manners of a Muslim. The Prophet (PBUH) was also widely known to stand up in respect for Jewish funerary processions in Medina.
These well-documented incidents, among others, paint a more complex picture of Jewish-Muslim relations in Medina than you are willing to own up to in your character assassination of the Prophet (PBUH) as a power-hungry warlord hellbent on destroying anybody who opposed him.
Ultimately it was the Jews' religious chauvinism that eventually did them in, because it caused them to cave into the temptation to opposing him politically. They made a military bet that they could defeat the Muslims if they threw their hands in with his opponents in Mecca, then they all lost (including the Meccans!). There were tragic consequences as a result. But that's a world away from religious persecution.
So your half-baked, toilet-bowl worthy one-liners about religious persecution aren't winning you any favors or sympathetic ears here...neither from me nor Waheed. Either come to the discussion prepared or please take your garbage elsewhere. Or otherwise start posting some evidence for us to see...
I'm sure you'll admit that people today who earnestly claim to be hearing the voice of God or of an angel are delusional. So the only difference between us is the time and place. I say that this was always delusional
Mankind has progressed/advanced in his knowledge and understanding of the world and his place in it, especially with respect to God. Sure, all three monotheisms build on an Abrahamic foundation, but Islam represents the pinnacle of theological sophistication. I'm sure you'd agree mankind's current state is more advanced than in the stone age? People were less sophisticated in ancient eras, and thus people needed more blunt ways of finding God. Even among the prophets God spoke to directly one can detect a progressive advancement or sophistication in theology. It's hard for you to see this if you're not a theology student. Even in the Bile itself, the earlier texts are cruder, more basic, less refined compared with the later ones...not just in writing style...the very concepts themselves.
Moral of the story is that what you and I perceive as delusional today was not delusional once upon a time and was appropriate for that level of societal sophistication.
With such a theology how do you decide who to listen to? It must be His will that brought me to this blog. How do you determine that His purpose isn't for me to guide you back to the straight path? You recite Al-Fatihah every day. How do you know that He hasn't sent me in answer to your supplications?
You don't have any special help from outside of yourself like Waheed and I have. All you have is your reason and brain power. We have all that too...but with the added boost of a helping hand of wisdom from above ("Say: 'God's guidance is the true guidance.'" Q2:120). I see guiding wisdom reflected in the respect and admiration I win from my non-Muslim colleagues at work when I explain to them my religious lifestyle and thoughts inspired by my faith and its teachings. They just think of me as very wise as they try to sort out their sordid lives on their own...but that wisdom that impresses them isn't coming from me. Our rationality isn't a perfect guide, otherwise there could have been no such thing as unintended consequences. Right action and outlook on life involves both use of reason and God's guidance. Neither alone is sufficient. You can go off an be your hard-rock empirical self, Non-Believer, but you'll never acquire any spiritual insights or gifts into life, and you're going to leave this life as clueless as when you came into it, staring into a vast unknown cosmos, because you'll remain blind to the fact that there's really any other way about things.
That's what the Qur'an means when it says that some people can see the light, while others are blind. We all have eyesight (well, except the truly blind), but not all of us have spiritual depth and vision. Your spiritual blindness is an example of what I find very wise about the Qur'an's words and why they ring true to me as the words of someone who knows me better than I know myself. That's how you know you've found the truth! You must seriously take us for some joke!
Waheed, this is your blog and you are free to do as you wish, of course. I hope that you will respond to Shenango's post. The question in my mind is whether the attitudes expressed in these posts are typical of how Muslims feel. Are these really the messages that you wish to broadcast to the Western world? Unless other Muslims speak up, what am I to assume?
I also hope that some of Shenango's non-Muslim colleagues read his posts and share with us how they see the discussion here, especially his comments in the last two paragraphs. However, I doubt that Shenango would dare to show this thread to any of them.
Post a Comment