This lecture examines the first chapter of the Qur'an, the main prayer text within Islam. It includes some issues such as grammatical explanations, prayer within the New Testament, and the worldview Al-Faatihah should create.
Comments and discussion are welcome.
Al-Faatihah: It's relevance to modern life
15 comments:
Hi Waheed. It's an interesting talk and a good discussion of Al-Faatihah.
What struck me most though was your comment about the Christian writer who says that from his perspective, prophets do make mistakes (@36:45). This is hugely different from Islam and hugely consequential. In fact, I would say that this difference captures precisely my "bias", as you call it, against Islam. From a social perspective this difference in view is the primary source of tension between Muslims and non-Muslims. It means that we cannot have a meaningful discussion about any issue which would require you to admit that Muhammad might have been wrong. I'm sure you've encountered people who will never concede on any point of an argument. It's pointless.
The Western model of a multi-cultural society does not readily accommodate groups who have this rigidity. Muslims need to understand this and Islam needs to adapt to this world by admitting that Muhammad made mistakes. The only other option is for Muslims to overthrow the existing institutions in the West, the very institutions that grant Muslims the right to live here freely as Muslims.
On a side note, once again I'm frustrated by not being able to respond to a post on whyislam. The Hadith of the Day post today is highly offensive to non-Muslims. It is shocking that anyone would quote this Hadith today. I hope you understand why we would see it this way. If you don't understand, then why don't you recite this Hadith at a Khutbah but reverse the role of Christians and Muslims and see how your congregants react to it!
Hi Waheed. A couple more comments:
1. Thank you for introducing me to John Shelby Spong. I've now listened to a number of his talks and find that he makes a lot of sense. I intend to spend more time trying to understand what he understands by "God'. I think he is articulating ideas that are very similar to mine. On several occasions, he has stated that he is "embarrassed" that people put words into His mouth in the form of Scriptures. I'm sure you'll admit that this has been a common theme in my posts. Islam needs a visionary like him; someone who has the clarity of thought to separate the essence of Islamic faith while rejecting all that is abhorrent in the tradition.
2. You seem almost gleeful that a Roman Catholic finds nothing objectionable in Al-Faatihah, but what about the other way around? Is there any reason you would not recite the Lord's Prayer? For my own part, the Lord's Prayer comes much closer to a prayer that I could recite than Al-Faatihah. What, practically, are the main points of the Lord's Prayer? striving together to create "heaven" on earth, being thankful for what we've got, and recognizing that the people around us are not perfect just as we are not perfect. By contrast, I find no simple way to embrace Al-Faatihah. The focus of the Lord's Prayer is on our inner spirit, not some external entity that is intervening in our lives in unknown and unpredictable ways and nor some imaginary Hereafter.
I wish you had said more about Spong's ideas about prayer. How is it possible to read his books and still recite Al-Faatihah? I would think that it would ring so hollow for you.
Hello N.B.
I hope to share thoughts in the order of your posts.
[1] The meaning of what I mentioned in the lecture [the arabic word Ma'soom] is debated, particularly within the Sunni tradition. The meaning I take from it is that Prophets do not commit sins. This may sound fantastic, but if we return to the Bible, it shows the great prophets and teachers as doing things that even normal average people would abhor. Lot commits incest, David arranges the death of a figure in his military in order to continue a relationship with the man's wife, and so forth. THE Quranic teaching is that such claims amount to character assassinations, that Prophets do not do such things.
[2] This is not the same as "mistakes". In the hadeeth literature, we have reports of "mistakes" on the Prophet's part, even those mistakes being pointed out by the companions.
I have summarized the debate within Sunni scholarship. All sides of that debate go into exhaustive detail and textual evidence to justify their particular position.
More importantly, to the other part of that post, I don't think that how Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be on him, is viewed by Muslims creates any problems in the West. It is true that Muslims can be sensitive to criticisms of him, and can react strongly when images are published such as the cartoon with a bomb in his [i.e. the Prophet's] turban, but those things are provocations. Meaning, political-minded forces out there, with agendas, intentionally stoke tensions. I think this happens on both sides.
How to address criticism of Prophet Muhammad is actually given throughout the Qur'an and Hadeeth. Here is another article which may help in these regards [url] http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2012/09/defending-prophet-methodology-of-quran.html[/url]
Hi N.B.
[1] I read a number of writers, spanning across the religious, philosophical and political spheres, and can find benefit in them, but that does not mean I will agree with all of their views. I admit to liking to read John Shelby Spong because he is a clear, brilliant mind, even if I disagree with many of his conclusions.
[2] As for your question on Al-Faatihah and the Lord's prayer, hopefully the lecture addressed that already. There are writers out there who are critical of the Lord's prayer, feminists who object to "Father" [I have seen some who change it to "Father/Mother"], and similar things.
As I see it, operating under the presumption that Jesus [peace and blessings be on him] did in fact teach the Lord's prayer, he gave his followers a prayer suitable for their circumstances. It is a prayer, a supplication, that looks at God as Loving and compassionate, looking for forgiveness from Him as well as self-forgiveness, which contrasts somewhat to the legalistic expression of faith found within the Jewish community of the times.
Al-Faatihah, functioning as the main prayer text in Islam, places emphasis on God's mercy, on God being the one who is taking care of everyone and everything, as giving us the attributes of what to look for in life and what to avoid. The video did have much on these aspects.
Returning to John Spong, he argues that Jesus in fact did not convey that prayer, rather-he asserts- it is the creation of the early church fathers [see his book BIBLICAL LITERALISM: A GENTILE HERESY PAGE 137].
You ask if I can recite the Lord's prayer and omit Al-Faatihah. My reply to that is that Prophet Muhammad, the final Prophet, who conveyed the final scripture, gave a particular or central text which captures all of what we need as humans. Even with that said, when we supplicate [it's called Du'a in Muslim parlance] we can pray for whatever we want, in whatever format or language we desire, yet, when we do the ritual of worship, we include Al-Faatihah in it for the reasons explained above. It is a truly universal text that can be used to invoke God, but also to help us in UNDERSTANDING God.
"I don't think that how Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be on him, is viewed by Muslims creates any problems in the West."
This is actually pretty insulting to me personally. Your view of Muhammad does create a problem for people like me in the West. That's the reality of the situation and you need to adapt to this reality. You may wish it to be otherwise, but you not believing what I'm honestly and earnestly telling you is not at all helpful.
"You ask if I can recite the Lord's prayer and omit Al-Faatihah."
No, this was two separate issues:
First, in reaction to what Kung has written, I asked if there was any reason a Muslim would not join with Christians when the Lord's Prayer is being recited? The prayer seems entirely consistent with what Islam teaches.
Second, in reaction to what Spong is saying, does Al-Faatihah have relevance today? Clearly, you are mistaken when you say that it is a universal text if an authoritative theologian like Spong is teaching that beseeching an external God to act in a particular way is meaningless. You have cherry-picked from Spong that he has some issues with the Lord's Prayer, but you don't seem to perceive that he would have even more issues with Al-Faatihah. In particular, Spong would argue that there is no evidence whatsoever of a "Merciful God" and that this is the creation of religious institutions.
Hi Waheed. I would like to add to my question and ask if there is any reason a Muslim would refuse to recite the Jewish prayer Ashrei? Would you not wish to proclaim "Happy (ashrei) are they who dwell in Your house; they will praise You, always!" twice at the start of each day and again during the afternoon service?
It is interesting to note that the prayer includes Psalm 145:8 "The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love." The phrase "gracious and compassionate" is חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם, so we see that the Jews were already describing God with the term "rachum" thousands of years before Muhammad used the word. I'm sure that you are aware that this verse is restating attributes of God from Exodus 34:6-7.
As a side note, I don't entirely agree with Kung that Jews would recite Al-Faatihah Ayah 4, at least not with the same understanding of the verse that Muslims have.
And a side question: does the Qur'an have equivalents for the related attributes חַנּוּן and חָ֫סֶד?
" This is actually pretty insulting to me personally. Your view of Muhammad does create a problem for people like me in the West. That's the reality of the situation and you need to adapt to this reality. You may wish it to be otherwise, but you not believing what I'm honestly and earnestly telling you is not at all helpful."
How in the world is my belief in Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace, insulting to you? I'm sorry, but that does not really make much sense.
" I asked if there was any reason a Muslim would not join with Christians when the Lord's Prayer is being recited? The prayer seems entirely consistent with what Islam teaches."
Theologically I don't see any problems within the "Lord's prayer", except that Muslims don't address God as "Father", and the main reason for that is that we don't want to create inaccurate pictures of the Divine reality. I have read writers who have dissected the text of that prayer line by line.
" Clearly, you are mistaken when you say that it is a universal text if an authoritative theologian like Spong is teaching that beseeching an external God to act in a particular way is meaningless. You have cherry-picked from Spong that he has some issues with the Lord's Prayer, but you don't seem to perceive that he would have even more issues with Al-Faatihah. In particular, Spong would argue that there is no evidence whatsoever of a "Merciful God" and that this is the creation of religious institutions."
Yes, but Spong was not a source for the presentation, but rather a brief aside to a question regarding the Lord's prayer [also known as the "O My Father"]. I'm actually not sure he would reject the idea of a Merciful God because he seems to argue in his writings that God is too merciful!
Hi N.B.
As far as your 5/11/18 post, good questions.
I don't see any theologically disputable teachings in the prayers you mention here, and there is no doubt that God has been described as Merciful and Kind in the previous dispensations as well.
As for Quranic presentations for God, see the last two verses of Soorah Al-Hashr [#59], as well as names of God such as "The LOVING" [aL-Wadood], "The Merciful" "The Compassionate" [as in Al-Faatihah, which was explained in the lecture]. Each of the names has a depth in meaning.
You need to reread what I wrote. The insult is in telling me that you know better than I do how I feel about something. "I don't think ... creates any problems in the West."
Kung says about Al-Faatihah "Can this not also be prayed by a Jew or a Christian? I have done so with conviction" and the best that you can say about Psalm 145 is "I don't see any theologically disputable teachings in the prayers you mention here"
This says a lot more about the difference between you and Kung than about the difference between the texts. What is the matter with you, that you cannot praise this text, that you wouldn't BE HAPPY to go to a synagogue and stand alongside a Jew and recite it? Just think how much it would advance relations between Muslims and Jews if Muslims would do this. Just think what message this would show your youth.
You tell me that because eating Kosher food is permitted, it proves that Muslims are not anti-Semitic. However, you won't praise the Jewish prayer because it was written by a Jew.
Hello N.B.
You are really stretching things here.
You seem to assume that I have some anti-Jewish or Anti-Christian bias, because I did not use the terms you wish me to use regarding texts.
From a Muslim perspective, Jesus and Moses are both authentic teachers commissioned from The Divine Reality, but the reverse is not true with Jews and Christians with regards to Muhammad.
In other words, I have no issue with the prayers taught by authentic Prophets [even if we have our own understanding of them], and similarly I don't have any desire for any good person's prayers to God( in whatever words and from whatever source) be left unanswered.
I invoke God in my own words, sometimes in the words of the Qur'an, the words of the Prophet, the words of others. I can invoke God as I see fit, and don't begrudge anyone who follows his conscious in how he or she seeks to connect to God.
As for the "insult" , to be honest you have been insulting me alot, although I have not said anything about it, but in where you feel insulted is because I said I don't think Muslims' beliefs about the Prophet cause a problem. Do you speak for the entire Western civilization? For every atheist or every Jew or every Christian or Muslim in the West? I'm sorry, the premise you share is not making any sense at all.
In referencing Hans Kung, I acknowledge that he is a critic. He has criticisms of the Qur'an and Islamic doctrine. He does not believe the Qur'an is from God, yet he finds something good in Al-Faatihah. The contrast you seem to be referring to is a non issue for me, because- as stated above- Muslims believe in Moses and Jesus and the Biblical Prophets [generally] anyways, so we have no problem with a prayer text authentically coming from them.
Shamsuddin Waheed: You seem to assume that I have some anti-Jewish or Anti-Christian bias, because I did not use the terms you wish me to use regarding texts.
=> No. I assume that you have this bias because you are Muslim and Muhammad and the Qur'an have this bias.
Shamsuddin Waheed: I have no issue with the prayers taught by authentic Prophets [even if we have our own understanding of them]
=> You are assuming you know who is an authentic prophet. You know as well as I do that there is no way to "prove" authenticity, as much as you claim otherwise. We need to keep our discussions to statements which can be supported with evidence.
Shamsuddin Waheed: As for the "insult" , to be honest you have been insulting me alot, although I have not said anything about it, but in where you feel insulted is because I said I don't think Muslims' beliefs about the Prophet cause a problem.
=> If you find my honesty insulting, then that's your problem. When I watch videos of interfaith meetings, I'm disappointed by the lack of honesty. Everyone is careful to say things that everyone agrees with and avoids the areas where the difference are substantial and significant, specifically, that Muhammad deliberately made Islam irreconcilable with any other religion. This, too, is your problem. There is nothing non-Muslims can do to fix Islam.
Shamsuddin Waheed: Do you speak for the entire Western civilization? For every atheist or every Jew or every Christian or Muslim in the West?
=> I make no pretence of speaking for any Muslims at all, nor can anyone claim to speak for everyone of any group. However, there is little in my narrative that I can think of that most atheists, Jews, Christians, or other non-Muslims would disagree with, whether in the West or the East, the North or the South. In principle, all of us agree that Muhammad is a false prophet and that the Qur'an is not the literal word of God.
Mostly we will agree with the assessments of the Quraysh that Muhammad was a madman.
Mostly we will agree that Muhammad's treatment of the Yathribi Jews was brutal and unjust.
Mostly we will agree that Muhammad's invasion and subsequent 50% tax on the Khaybar was oppressive.
Mostly we will agree that Muhammad's "peace treaties" which required non-Muslims to pay a tax to avoid being annihilated were extortive.
I could go on.
If you can back up your insinuation that my views are not typical, then please invite such a non-Muslim to respond to me here.
Hello N.B.
" You are assuming you know who is an authentic prophet. You know as well as I do that there is no way to "prove" authenticity, as much as you claim otherwise. We need to keep our discussions to statements which can be supported with evidence."
You have been moving the goalposts throughout this discussion. In any case, as said before, I have NO PROBLEM with anyone praying to God in whatever way they deem fit. Also, from the Islamic perspective there were Prophets before that of Muhammad, and most of the Prophets we accept are also accepted by Jews and Christians. In this case, it is those who reject this premise who are a minority among human being.
" When I watch videos of interfaith meetings, I'm disappointed by the lack of honesty. Everyone is careful to say things that everyone agrees with and avoids the areas where the difference are substantial and significant, specifically, that Muhammad deliberately made Islam irreconcilable with any other religion. This, too, is your problem. There is nothing non-Muslims can do to fix Islam."
We are not asking anyone to "fix" Islam. It is self-supporting and self-correcting already. As for your take on interfaith meetings, that is a matter of opinion. Many people think as you do, but many others see benefit in these gatherings, in that they give an opportunity to learn the perspective of others on certain religious beliefs.
" I make no pretence of speaking for any Muslims at all, nor can anyone claim to speak for everyone of any group. However, there is little in my narrative that I can think of that most atheists, Jews, Christians, or other non-Muslims would disagree with, whether in the West or the East, the North or the South. In principle, all of us agree that Muhammad is a false prophet and that the Qur'an is not the literal word of God."
People have their religious beliefs and reasons for their religious beliefs. Yet, let's have a look at some of the things that have been said about Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, by learned NON MUSLIM thinkers:
George Bernard Shaw: I have studied him — the wonderful man, and in my opinion far from being an Anti-Christ he must be called the Savior of Humanity.
I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much-needed peace and happiness.
Mahatma Gandhi: “I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind… I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.”
Hans Kung: An excerpt from his book "Islam Past Present and Future" is read out starting around 1:51 in this video. [url] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhqInxMkan8[/url]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhqInxMkan8[/url]
Hi Waheed. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. I don't have time to watch your video right now but I would like to respond to your quotations of Gandhi and G.B.Shaw. You keep trying to bring the conversation back to religion, but for me the issue is about politics. Unfortunately, this is intrinsic when talking about Islam. The Shahada makes this explicit by declaring a belief in both the supernatural and the political. In my view, this is what is "broken" about Islam and needs to be fixed.
My view is not that different from Gandhi. For me it is still a question; for Gandhi, he has an answer. My question is "if Islam is so great, why was all the violence and brutality necessary for its spread?" Gandhi answers the question by saying that Islam is so compelling that it would have spread without the use of force. Implicit in Gandhi's statement is a condemnation of the use of the sword to spread Islam. This is the obstacle that I'm unable to overcome. Until Muslims acknowledge that Muhammad's brutality was unnecessary and unjust, I cannot even begin to consider the merits of the religion that he was spreading with the sword. I don't understand why, in the modern context, you are not able to see why this is such a major objection to islam.
As for Shaw, do you really want to invoke his support? Shaw was a committed Marxist and for decades he fought for social reform within the democratic system. Now in his late seventies, he had given up on the parliamentary system. Throughout the 1930s and into the 1940s, Shaw praised the dictatorships of Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler (though he decried Hitler's antisemitism). Even after WW II, he continued to praise Stalin. He saw dictatorships as governments that were able to effect real social change.
Shaw admired Muhammad as one of the greatest dictators the world has ever seen; a man who was committed to the social changes that he believed in and would stop at nothing to effect those changes, including the brutal suppression of those who obstructed him.
Shaw also said: "And there was to be no nonsense about toleration. You accepted Allah or you had your throat cut by someone who did accept him, and who went to Paradise for having sent you to Hell."
In this day and age of effective social democratic governments, I don't think there are many on the left today who share Shaw's view that dictatorships are the best means for social change.
So which of these two men do you agree with? The one who says that Muhammad's brutality was unnecessary or the one who believes that the end justifies the means, however brutal the means are?
Hello N.B!
With regards to George Bernard Shaw, not everyone can agree about everything. Citing his words, as he was undoubtedly a man of great influence, does not mean that I agree with his assessment of Nazism or Fascism, it simply means that he had a view that was worth sharing.
Your reading of the quote from Mahatma Gandhi on the Prophet seems to be cynical. After all, whatever Gandhi's personal failings or controversial views were ( I say this because I have a feeling you will cite some other things from him) the simple fact of the matter is that (1) Gandhi wanted to understand something about Islam because Islam had -and continues to have- a very strong impact on Indians of all shades of religion (2) Gandhi was a spiritual person, and therefore has both religious as well as political reasons to get a better picture of the Prophet.
Post a Comment