Below you will find recordings of our recent presentation in Las Vegas community on different aspects of Islam. Descriptions are at bottom of videos.
Grace in the Desert presentation part 1
Summary: An introduction to the five pillars of religion, fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam, the role of the Qur'an. At minute 11:12 sound quality improves due to use of microphone. Some of the laws of Islam are also explained, such as dress code, dietary guidelines, Jihad, terrorism.
Grace in the Desert presentation part 2
Summary: Q and A session, which explores Islam in different cultural contexts, reasons for the spread of the faith ( minute 1:25), charity (3:35), recommended English translations of the Qur'an ( 4:28), prayer method during situations such as flying ( 5:50), Non Muslims being prohibited from being in Makkah and Madinah ( 7:47), is it necessary to learn Arabic? ( 9:32), Sunni-Shiite differences (10:42), gender segregation in worship ( 12:55), religious freedom in the Muslim world and as expressed in the religion itself ( 16:10), the initial revelations to the Prophet ( 19:20), , addressing the idea that Islam borrowed from Judaism ( 21:33), Qur'an being a difficult, repetitive book ( 24:40), addressing war and relationships with Non Muslims (26:56), Explanation and demonstration of the Adhaan or prayer call ( 28:49)
7 comments:
Hello Waheed. This is an interesting presentation. I'm always curious to see what you say, and more significantly, what you don't say to Christians. By not presenting a complete picture, you appear to me to be somewhat disingenuous. Here are a few examples. I hope that you might agree with me that a return visit is needed to clarify these points.
[1] Muslim
You say that Muslim/Islam means submission to God, but you do not say that the confession of faith is more than that; it is "Islam is that you witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." No Christian who has read the Qur'an would make that confession nor would they believe that Jesus would make such a confession. It is not accurate to say that Jesus was a Muslim nor that Christians and Jews who submit to God are Muslims because this word is shorthand for much more than what it means literally (more "nuanced", you would say).
You go on to say that all the biblical prophets brought the same message of submission, therefore they all brought the same message. This is faulty logic. Submission to God may be the only element that they have is common and the entirety of their messages could be, and in fact are, radically different from the message of Muhammad.
You also go on to say that Muslims believe in the same prophets as Jews and Christians, but you do not say that their understanding of these prophets is significantly different. If you are going to say that Muslims believe in Jesus, shouldn't you be honest and admit that Islam rejects Christian doctrine? Shouldn't you mention Q 19:35, 2:116, 6:101, 10:68, 17:111 (and more) or that the Muslims who invaded the Holy City of Jerusalem built a monument and in 692 AD inscribed it with slogans attacking the Christian faith?
You finish this segment by saying that the only theological difference between Muslims and Christians is the Qur'an. Shouldn't you mention that Muslims reject the Bible as an authentic source of God's wisdom? Why are you deliberately misleading these people into thinking that Islam is the same thing as Christianity except that Islam has one more prophet and one more book; a book which Muslims claim only confirms what was sent before? It's simply not true.
[2] Jihad
You say that "jihad" has both a military context and a non-military context. However, you don't acknowledge that for the entire time of Muhammad's rule in Madinah, he considered himself to be at war with the nonbelievers and therefore Muhammad's relationship to the non-Muslims was one of animosity and, more importantly, one of "justified" aggression. What can you say to differentiate the modern day Muslims who also see themselves at war with the world of nonbelievers? Aren't you deflecting from this reality by pointing out that "jihad" has another context?
... 2
[3] Religious tolerance
As usual, you mention Q 2:256 as a verse that supports religious tolerance. Shouldn't you also mention that Muhammad goes on to say in the very next verse that those who disbelieve in him are destined for the Fire and will abide there eternally? Taken together, the two verses say that a person isn't compelled to convert to Islam, but they are doomed if they don't.
In opposition to this one verse which doesn't support what you say, there are literally hundreds of verses which show how intolerant Islam is. Why don't you mention a few of them? How about Q 9:30 and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
[4] Disbelievers
You say that the Qur'an does not say "go kill the infidels". However, you don't mention the implications of "fitnah is worse than killing" (Q 2:191,193,217) These verses ensure that there can be no end to the conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. Once fighting has begun, which it has, the only way that it can end is by the complete capitulation of one side. What path forward is there for non-Muslims given this situation?
You raise Q 5:5 again. You don't mention the context that this law was proclaimed at a time when the Muslims were newly arrived in Madinah and had limited access to their own food and to marriageable Muslim women. You don't mention how limited the permission to marry outside of Islam is. You don't mention that the permission that is given does not go both ways: a Muslim woman is not permitted to marry a non-Muslim man. In spite of this law, Muhammad did make war against the Jews of Madinah, so you should not assert that this law served to prevent war.
Finally, you cherry-pick the Spanish Inquisition as a period when Muslims were more tolerant of Jews than Christians were. There have also been periods when Jews in Muslim territories have been similarly persecuted, for example, by the Almohads during the 12th Century. It's a "whataboutism". That other groups have also persecuted and oppressed religious groups within their territories does not alter how non-Muslims are described in the Qur'an and how they have been persecuted in Muslim territories from the beginning of Islam.
I look forward to hearing your response, Waheed, and also I hope that you might invite members of that church to participate in this discussion!
Hello N.B.
You make many assertions here, which, I think, stems from not listening carefully to the presentation. Please review the presentation.
I will strive to address the poignant issues you raise in the same order or fashion you have posted above.
[1] Islam/Muslim
The presentation explains in detail the linguistic meaning of the terms "Islam" and "Muslim". From the perspective of the Qur'an, the Prophets of God were all teaching the same essential message, i.e. to submit to the One and Only God. That teaching is summarized by the term "Islam". In terms of "Islam" as practiced by the followers of Muhammad, the last of the Prophets, we see that as the completion of the process of-in a sense-perfecting those teachings, finishing or sealing it. Perhaps a better explanation of this can be found at [url]https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2009/04/christianmuslim-identity-thoughts-on.html[/url], in particular the sections "Islam: The path of Jesus and Muhammad" and "Is there a difference between Biblical Islam and Quranic Islam?" . Hopefully you can have a look at this and come to understand the premise from which we are basing this argument, which is firmly rooted in the Qur'an itself.
It is also worth noting that atleast three times in the first video, the declaration of faith is explained, which includes an acknowledgement that Muhammad, upon whom be peace, was God's messenger. Perhaps you did not hear that clearly, which would explain your above assertion that somehow I was being disingenuous. Listen to the recording again.
In terms of the Quranic verses you cite, which have to do with God not having (literal) children, the Bible uses the term "son" metaphorically, however, according to the Qur'an, in the verses you cite, this term should not be used because it is one which is apt to be seriously misunderstood, particularly outside of a Semitic context.
[2] Jihad
We dispute this characterization that the Prophet saw himself as in some perpetual warfare with Non Muslims. In any case, in terms of justifications in today's world, I will say that while I am not always able to judge the unique political situations in every nation, I can wholeheartedly and sincerely condemn such things as the Al-Shabab attack recently in Kenya as being against the Islamic ethics of warfare, which does not allow for attacks on Non combatants.
[3] Religious tolerance
You seem to feel that reference to Q 2:256 was incomplete. To this feeling, our response is that [a] The reference you are sharing, i.e. glossing over the words which follow, the meaning of "Rejection" (Yakfur) and "Taaghoot" in the text itself has implications that can't be oversimplified by simply making an assertion that "Muhammad is telling people they are going to hell". [b] Even if read like that ( I am not reading it like that), that does not imply religious intolerance. Most Protestant Christians think of the church/belief in blood sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him) as necessary for salvation, and famously use John 3:16 in the N.T. as evidence for Non Christians being hell-bound. That does not mean that Christians automatically or by nature/text have to be intolerant of Non Christians.
You mention a line from Q 9:30. The term Qaatalahumullaah is hyperbolic, according to the scholars, and is itself able to be translated in other ways. In any case, it does not advocate violence or aggression in the physical world towards Christians.
[4] Disbelievers
I am amazed that you are citing these sorts of arguments, because the Qur'an is clear."Fight those who fight you" (Q 2:190). In the presentation itself, Q 60:8-9 was referenced, which says that God does not disallow good relations with those who are NOT oppressing you due to religious differences.
Your reference to "Fitnah is worse than killing" only makes sense to me if you have come across Ibn Katheer;s assertion that "Fitnah" refers to idolatry. That is only one view. As a word, "Fitnah" means disorder, chaos, temptation, discord,and is used as such both within the Qur'an, everyday Arabic as well as other languages Muslims speak. I actually wrote an essay on the term "Fitnah" years ago, looking at every place in the Qur'an where the term or a verbal form of it appears, and came to some powerful conclusions. I won't get into that right now, as that would distract from the main point.
Regarding Q 5:5, the reports about how and why certain Quranic verses/commands were given are always a source of dispute. That concept (i.e. that Quranic verses react to particular happenings) is called Asbab an Nuzool. The fact of the matter is is that whatever one says about what may or may not have happened, nonetheless it has been the consensus of Muslim scholars that the verse Q 5:5 allows marriage with Non Muslims as well as eating of their food. That alone is an evidence that the Qur'an does NOT seek confrontational relations with Non Muslims.
You also assert that the Prophet, peace and blessings of God be on him, waged war on Jews. You should take the time to read a bit more on this. Hostilities broke out due to treachery on the part of the other party, not because the Prophet is looking for excuse to make war! The books ( such as previously cited) have the details on this matter.
Thank you for your responses, Waheed.
I don't wish to derail this thread from the topic of Christian outreach. My purpose was to point out that the relationship between Islam and Christianity is much more complex than your presentation implies. I'm hoping that members at Grace in the Desert will read this thread and comment. It is for them to judge what is genuine and what is disingenuous.
Most of the points that I raise here have been raised in earlier threads and I would welcome further discussion in those threads. Here's a list of those I'm still interested in and, also, so that other readers may see what is behind my comments above. Some of the threads are long and I indicate where I believe we left off.
https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-path-of-prophets-timeless-guidance.html
The difference between "religion" and "law" and a rebuttal of your thesis that the religion of Muhammad is a continuation of the religion of Moses. I see that you responded to this yesterday. Thank you. I intend to comment further.
https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2018/08/do-we-live-according-to-allahu-akbar.html
The murder at Nakhla, the first bloodshed between Muslims and non-Muslims. My understanding of Q 2:217 is elaborated in this thread.
https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-attributes-of-healthy-islamic.html
"Golden Ages of Islam". The Rashidun Caliphate is not seen as a "golden age". What makes an Islamic "golden age"?
https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2018/04/al-faatihah-its-relevance-to-modern-life.html
The difference between Shaw's view and Gandhi's view of Muhammad.
https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2017/12/foundations-for-proper-thinking.html
The fate of the Jewish Tribes of Madinah.
One more link:
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2017/06/are-muslims-going-crazy-attempt-to-make.html
The Battle of Mu'tah and Islamic fanaticism.
Hello N.B.
Hopefully this finds you well. With regards to your comments above, please keep in mind that with presentations like this, the intention is to give a brief outline of the subject of Islam, it's core beliefs, values and practices. You will notice that the presentation itself was only a little over thirty minutes, the remaining time devoted to q & a session. Thus, "complexity" is something we have little time for.
In this thread of comments, you accuse me of being disingenuous. That's a pretty rude thing to say. I share what I think useful and correct, in other words, I share what I believe to be true and representative of authentic Islamic teachings. You can address and disagree with what has been stated, however you should not make assumptions like that, nor should you vocalize rudeness like that, especially when I take time to address your comments/ questions in a respectful and polite way.
As for the threads you mention above, I'll take a look at them, and decide if replying to your assertions is actually necessary.
Post a Comment