The Path as described by the Qur'an
لَہٗ مَقَالِیۡدُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ۚ یَبۡسُطُ الرِّزۡقَ لِمَنۡ یَّشَآءُ وَ یَقۡدِرُ ؕ اِنَّہٗ بِکُلِّ شَیۡءٍ عَلِیۡمٌ
شَرَعَ لَکُمۡ مِّنَ الدِّیۡنِ مَا وَصّٰی بِہٖ نُوۡحًا وَّ الَّذِیۡۤ اَوۡحَیۡنَاۤ اِلَیۡکَ وَ مَا وَصَّیۡنَا بِہٖۤ اِبۡرٰہِیۡمَ وَ مُوۡسٰی وَ عِیۡسٰۤی اَنۡ اَقِیۡمُوا الدِّیۡنَ وَ لَا تَتَفَرَّقُوۡا فِیۡہِ ؕ
In the Tafseer field, there is a principal known as Tasfeer ul Qur'an bil Qur'an, meaning that the Qur'an is best explained or understood by referencing other places within the Qur'an. Often, this practically means studying the context in which a particular verse or assertion is placed, rather than developing a stand-alone understanding based on a single text. Here, we have a beautiful example of this principal.
" To Him ( i.e. Allah) belongs the keys of the heavens and the Earth. He widens provision to whom He wills, and limits ( as well). Indeed, He is the One knowing all things." ( Q 42:12)In other words, God is the "owner" of the universe, and as the one who possesses the keys, to open and close doors, Allah does that for whom He wills, in accordance to His plan and wisdom, according to his own schedule. Other texts to recall in these regards include Ayatul Kursiyy (ft.1) and Ayah An-Noor(ft.2).
Next, we are told " He ( Allah) has made you ( O followers of Muhammad) traverse on the same path, in terms of deen (Shara'a lakum min ad deen) which We (Allah) enjoined on Noah, which has been sent to you (O Muhammad), and what has been enjoined on Abraham, Moses and Jesus-establish deen, and do not place division therein.." ( Q 42:13).
These verses are to be read together, as they clearly indicate that Allah opened the doors of spiritual provision to the followers of Prophet Muhammad, the same doors He (soobhaanahu wa ta'alaa) opened for four other prophets.
These four prophets are all associated with safety on some level. Noah and his ark, Abraham's teachings, which-when followed, "save" a person from idolatry, Moses, who led his followers away from the tyranny of Pharaoh, and Jesus, who was leading people away from the traps of anger and self-deception.
To be on that path, the path of maximum benefit and safety, is truly a blessing This is why we should be consistent in proclaiming praise to Allah for the blessing of Islam (Alhamdulillaahi 'ala Ni'matil Islaam).
The operative word is "path". On this path, there are people ahead of us and people behind us. In this ayah, Allah says to "establish deen, and don't create division therein" (Aqeemud-deen, wa Laa Tatafarraqoo feeh.).
"Establish" means to build, and building takes patience, intelligence and planning. It takes team work as well, to establish firmly deen, be it in personal or communal application.
In whatever stage of the journey we are on, we should help each other and remember that it takes patience, commitment, and planning. So have the Niyyah to build up your deen, not only in practice but in particular in thinking right.
Addressing sectarian divisions
The verse (42:13) also asserts that there should be no breaking apart or divisions with regards to deen. This assertion can be taken in a number of ways. We can take it as a command (amr) for unity, meaning not to break up into sectarian denominations, or it can be taken as instructing us to recognize that the prophets and messengers all taught the same deen, and thus, we should not view them as teaching different things, also implying that we should make no distinctions between God's messengers ( Q 2:285).
A reply to the above can be made, pointing out that there are divisions among the Muslim community. This is true, among the Ahlus Sunnah we have different Madhaahib (ft.3), and of course the main sectarian difference being with the Shiites. However, in general these divisions are on secondary points (furoo') and not on fundamental principles(usool) . Thus, all Muslims, of all theological colors, have the same Qur'an, the same pillars of faith, same prayers, and same ethical and behavioral principles.
This is a reflection of Allah's blessing for the deen, a deen which has been completed and protected ( Q 5:3). Thus, in the big scheme of things, the sectarian divisions among Muslims should not be exaggerated.
Footnotes
(1) The "Throne verse" ( Q 2:255), for which see here
(2) ''The verse of God's light" ( Q 24:35) , which describes the reach of Allah's guidance. See here
(3) The schools of jurisprudence only differ in terms of applications of legal methodology, and not really on theological points. There are theological differences between the Sunnis and the Shiites, some of them important, however in terms of fundamentals, both groups share that in common.
77 comments:
Al-hamdu lillah, very nice khutbah and may Allah bless you.
Comment from your brother Abdul Bari
Hi Waheed. I'm glad to see that you are well and have returned to your blog. I hope that you will find time to respond to some of my comments from last year!
I have some questions about how you understand "deen".
1. The word "deen" is widely used in Judaism. Is the Qur'anic meaning substantially the same as the Jewish meaning?
2. In the translation of Q 42:13, "O followers of Muhammad" is inserted. Other translations that I've seen insert "O Muhammad". However, my question is this: are you able to insert "O humanity" instead and still make sense of this verse? Do you believe that all of us, whether Muslim or not, whether servants of Abraham's God or not, traverse on the same path? Does inserting "O followers of Muhammad" create divisions in direct contradiction to the verse itself?
3. Does what you say about divisions among the Muslim community also apply more broadly to divergent communities, Muslim, Christian, and others, namely that we all agree on fundamental principles, the same ethical and behaviour principles. Are you creating division over holy books, faith and prayers? Would you also say that the divisions between Muslims and non-Muslims should not be exaggerated?
Thank you, Waheed. I'm looking forward to hearing your response!
Hello N.B.
Welcome back to the blog. I'll take a look again at any questions that may have been missed previously, with regards to the above questions.
[1] Hebrew seems to use the word "deen" to mean rule or judgement. Occasionally the same meaning applies in Arabic. Deen is a very rich term, which is why I left it as is, rather than giving a translation, when mentioned in the Quranic verse cited in the article. In the first chapter of the Qur'an, Al-Faatihah, Yawmid deen means "ruler of the day of judgement". "Deen" can mean "religion", system of government" "way of life", even "methodology". A word from the same root, dayn, means "debt".
[2] "O followers of Muhammad" is inserted because the Arabic has the term "kum", which means "you" in the plural. Therefore, it is understood as referring to the "you" who are groups of Muslims, followers of Prophet Muhammad-peace be upon him. When we take a look at the verse, the context is directly speaking to those who assert to be on the same path as the prophets of old, it's a theological assertion. Therefore, it does not seem prudent to refer to those outside of that theological assumption.
With that said, that does not mean that Islam/Muslims are inherently the enemies of Non Muslims. That would be an incorrect assumption, both theologically as well as historically. Some Quranic verses of interest would be Q 4:1 and Q 49:13. Do have a look at those.
[3] Yes and no. Generally human civilizations have had ( and still have) much in common in terms of what it classifies as right and wrong, particularly in public morals and laws meant to ensure safety (such as the illegality of murder), but the particular items in discussion in the article is a bit limited, limited to the Muslim community's internal issues. In terms of theology, Islam sees itself as the same deen delivered by the great teachers of old, whom we refer to as Prophets, so it likewise sees itself as doing away with divisions. With that said, the Qur'an recognizes that there will always be those who don't agree with what it says, and that's okay. The Qur'an says that in deeni affairs, there is no force or compulsion involved (Q 2:256).
Looking at it another way, "divisions" to a certain extent are not problematic. God made us having different colors and languages, and that would also mean practically that our outlooks (thinking) will likewise carry differences. "Unity through diversity" is a slogan that has always been taught in the religion and lived in terms of Muslim/Muslim relations and Muslim/Non Muslim relations.
Hi Waheed. Thank you for your response. I have spent the last few days digging deeper into the Arabic words in Q 42:13 and how they are used in the Qur'an.
First, "tafarraqa". I now understand that this word has the sense of "to distinguish", in other words, that no distinction is to be made between the messages of Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus.
Second, "shara'a". I now understand this word has the sense of "establishing law".
Do you think that the reason these prophets are brought together in this verse is that they all established law? Do you really think there is no distinction between them on matters of faith, and therefore, religion? Wouldn't you say that the Islamic axioms of faith are of little importance to the prophets in the Torah?
Angels? Didn't God appear directly to these prophets? Do angels have the same significance in the Torah as they do in the Qur'an?
Holy books? Were there holy books in the time of Moses?
Day of Judgement? Is this a significant theme in the Torah?
Predestination? Is this even mentioned in the Torah?
Could it be fairly said that these Jewish prophets may have brought the same law but did not bring the same faith and, therefore, not the same religion?
You also mention Q 2:256. The words I find interesting here are "rashd" and "ghay". These are words that distinguish between doing good versus doing evil, again related more to law than to faith. Isn't the correct understanding of this verse "There is no need for compulsion in law: the Right Path is clearly distinct from the wrong path." Would you say that most people would refrain from criminal behaviour even if there was no law enforcement? Don't most people hope for a world where we treat each other with trust, with dignity and respect? Wouldn't you say that without any of this, human civilization would quickly disintegrate and therefore this is a universal "law" without which there would be no civilization?
The word in 2:256 that I would dispute is "tabayyana". I think it is far from clear what is Right and what is not, and there wouldn't be so much written subsequent to the Qur'an if the Qur'an made everything clear.
Hello N.B. !
Hopefully this finds you well.
Below are some thoughts to your comment above.
[1] Tattafaraqa comes from the root Faraqa, which means to divide or distinguish, break up. The meaning or translation really depends on the context. In the verse in question, the command is Aqeemud deen, wa laa tattafaraqo feehi, to establish deen, and not make distinction or division therein.
[1] Shara'a lakum min ad deen was translated as "He ( God) has made you traverse on the same path, in terms of deen.." The word Sharee'ah comes from the same root, which is seemingly what you are referring to, but the original meaning has to do with traveling a path. The modern word for street is "Shari'i". In response to your question, from the Islamic perspective they were all "traveling down the same road". The Prophets of God were all from the same source, teaching from the same well of knowledge, wisdom and guidance. It can be said that their emphatic points may differ according to need, but they were all from the same source. You mention angels, sacred scriptures, Judgement day and Qadr (which I have my own understanding of), but what seems to be being lost in our discussion is that each had particular emphatic points. The Qur'an, for example, (and even the Bible for that matter) asserts that Jesus was a person of mercy and love. Meaning, his teachings had great emphasis on those points as needed for his audience. That does not mean the same is absent from the character or teachings of the other prophets, upon all of whom be peace. Nor does that negate all of them being from the same source.
Now, the Islamic perspective continues, what about issues of great contradictions between those points associated with the great teachers and the scriptures? The example of the divinity of Christ being a good one. The Qur'an says that Jesus was not God, and posits a number of logical appeals on this issue. A person can dispute that, but then go back to history and discover that this issue was disputed even in the early days of Christianity as a movement. Moreover, there is ( I argue) no strong evidence even from the four Gospels associated with Jesus that he asserted Divinity. There is, however, strong evidence from the four Gospels that he saw himself as a servant of God, not as God himself! So, the Qur'an is proven here, atleast in the extent that its perspective has parallels from the past. The Islamic perspective is that all truth should line up in principle with the Qur'an. This is, of course, the perspective of faith, and is a long discussion!
It looks like you are interpreting the term "Deen" in Q 2:256 to mean "law" and not "religion". It seems you are influenced by the Hebrew/Jewish usage of the same term. Such an interpretation, while interesting, does not find any support from the Quran commentators, In terms of what you have said about good vs evil, I tend to agree, but in any case in my previous comment I simply left the reference as "deeni affairs", and I understand it here to reference religious dogmas and identity. None should be compelled to accept a religion, because it goes against the very principles of religion. Moreover, such force is actually unneeded anyways, because the right guidance is distinguishable from Ghiyy!
Amongst the Muslims, the basic theology is agreed upon, as is the basic moral code, because such things are clearly found in the Qur'an. The Qur'an encourages people to think and ask questions, and such has led to many works penned by scholars of all religious trends and denominations and particular fields of interest. That does not mean the Qur'an is unclear. Rather, it means that the Qur'an has sparked conversations and thinking, which is actually among its goals.
Hello Waheed. You seem to be missing my main point.
I think you have to agree that the religion of Muhammad is definitely not the same as the religion of Moses. The differences are so fundamental and numerous, I don't think I need to elaborate, but I will if you need me to.
However, wherever you go in the world, human nature is fundamentally the same and, therefore, the laws governing human behaviour are also fundamentally the same, independent of religion.
So how do you make sense of these verses? How is it that God revealed two very different religions? Which path is being talked about?
Do you really think that a book like the Qur'an can capture the entire complexity of human behaviour? It is, at best, a point along the line of human understanding of this complex system, and, I would argue, not a particularly useful point.
You have mentioned "golden ages" of Islam. In that context, I would agree that Muslim scholars have contributed to our understanding. When these scholars did not constrain themselves to the limited perspective of the Qur'an, when they were open to the intellectual ideas of the outside world, they were travelling down the road to a more comprehensive understanding of what humanity is. However, it seems to me that every one of these periods ended with a decline into orthodoxy.
Hello N.B.
Thanks for your questions and comments. Below you will find a brief reply.
[1] The differences in law or in theology between Islam as preached by Muhammad and that which is associated with Moses, peace be on them both, can be summarized in the following ways [a] The audience of Moses had needs that were different from those of the audience of Muhammad. [b] Misunderstandings or outright distortions. [c] The Qur'an comes as a completion of what came before, and since it's ultimate audience is global, it's laws will be different. To use a Christian example, the N.T. disallows divorce, only allowing it in cases of adultery. This altered the Mosaic laws, which allows it. The N.T. disallowance of it stems from its abuse in the ("Jewish"} community of those days. The Qur'an comes along and allows divorce. The wider world has needs which are different, therefore, the allowance for divorce.
[2] The Qur'an does not seek to put its reader in a prison, wherein the reader only reads that one text! On the contrary, the Qur'an instructs us repeatedly to study and places emphasis on the physical sciences, archaeology and the like. It is when we fail, as social orders, to heed the instructions of the Qur'an, that we fall into ruin.
Hi Waheed.
I'm referring to the vast difference in theology that you find in the Torah compared to the Qur'an, most notably the importance of the Hereafter in Islam while the Hereafter is absent in the Torah. Words like Paradise, the Hereafter, the Last Day, the Fire, a painful chastisement and others expressions appear in hundreds of verses in the Qur'an.
How do you explain this? If the Israelites were going to face a Day of Judgement and could spend an eternity in "the Fire", then wouldn't God have told Noah and Abraham and finally Moses? Therefore, how can the Qur'an be from the same source as the Torah? Since the Qur'an says that it is from the same source, isn't the only logical conclusion that the Qur'an is not the Truth?
Hello NB,
To answer your query, allow me to use a religious example. Christians believe in the same figures in the Bible as do Jews, they believe in Abraham, Moses, etc. From a Christian perspective, those figures- found in the (what Christians call the Old Testament) Torah are sent from God, and therefore, are on the same path as Jesus was in terms of being authentically commissioned by God.
The Qur'anic ( and perhaps arguably the Biblical) treatment of the Prophets, in particular the prophets such as those you mentioned, are commissioned with a message of social impact. Moses stands against a tyrant who saw himself as Divine, Noah preaches a message intended to save his society. In other words, it's more than simply speaking about the hereafter.
For Muslims, we believe that these prophets were commissioned by the same source, God Almighty, and- in essence- the difference is that whereas the Muslims include Muhammad on this list of messengers, may God's peace be upon them all.
The Qur'an, the scripture given to Prophet Muhammad, is a scripture that is seen as the completion of that process. Therefore, it should contain all those things of importance, and, in its viewpoint, the hereafter and Judgement say are important. They are issues to be cognizant of.
I hope this explains the Islamic perspective.
Hi Waheed.
No, that doesn't answer my questions at all.
First, are you not able to understand the distinction between law and religion?
Second, just because you say that the Torah and the Qur'an are from the same source and that the Qur'an "completes that process" (whatever that means) doesn't make it true.
It is a serious oversimplification to narrow Moses' contribution to "standing against a tyrant". Maybe that's the Islamic "Reader's Digest" version of the life of Moses. There are thousands of verses in the Torah covering the time of Moses after the Israelite's departure from Egypt. Have you read much of this? If you would take the time, you would see immediately what I mean when I say that the Torah and the Qur'an are not from the same source.
Also, given the amount of change in our world since the time of Muhammad, it's an absurdity to insist that the development of human law was complete at that time, or ever will be complete at any time in the future.
My point about the Hereafter is just an example, an obvious and a very important example, of how the religions differ. You haven't yet provided anything tangible to explain why the Hereafter was of no importance in the time of Moses. What changed?
To say that Islam is a continuation and completion of Judaism is simply not true, as any Jew will tell you. What is the point of this misdirection?
I have been giving you above the Islamic perspective. It is your choice to believe it or not, but nonetheless that is the Islamic answer, that Moses, Jesus and Muhammad are from the same source, drawing from the same fountain.
Similarly, just saying "did you read the Torah, if so you would see such and such" does not really prove anything.I have read it, very carefully, as well as studying Jewish and Christian commentaries on it.The Jewish perspective will be different from the Christian one, and vice versa, even though they draw (largely) from the same textual materials. The Islamic perspective is that the Qur'an is from the same source, however it comes as a completion as well as a purifier of sorts (Q 27:76), addressing some serious misconceptions, and in addition to that with a universal mission, as opposed to a regional one.
I actually like your question about the changes in the world since the time of Muhammad (peace be upon him and upon all the Prophets of Allah). Our reply is really quite simple (1) In terms of religious scripture, doctrine and general principles, this is all completed with Muhammad and the Qur'an. (2) There has not been a person nor a civilization/character which has arisen since Prophet Muhammad's time that accomplished what he and his followers accomplished. Even among the religious claimants that emerged post-Muhammad that are from a Non Muslim backround.
If you take some time to review the Qur'an, you will see that it has alot to say that is relevant to today's world, both in the spiritual and social realms.
Your other query about the hereafter, I think you know that that issue is debated amongst the Jewish community themselves. There are Jewish voices which argue that the Torah in our possession today does in fact speak about the hereafter.
Waheed, if you can point out a verse in the Torah where Moses tells his people that they will spend an eternity in the Fire of Hell if they fail to obey His commandments, then I would have no choice but to concede this to you. However, if there is no such verse, then the theological universe of Moses is fundamentally different from the theological universe of Muhammad.
This seems like a very simple matter to settle.
Beyond that, I wonder if you could elaborate on Q 27:76 and tell me what were these serious misconceptions that the Jews had? (and still have?)
Hello NB,
From the Islamic perspective, these teachers (such as Moses and Muhammad,peace be on them) were both "from the same theological universe" ( to use your expression). Similarly, it is the Christian perspective that Jesus and Moses were from the same theological universe, even though today their followers are called Christians and Jews respectively.
I found online that the notion that Jews reject an afterlife is actually not universally agreed upon. For an example, see https://www.jweekly.com/2015/06/19/torah-is-hell-a-place-ora-state-we-create/.
Another article by a pair of Jewish authorities asserts the following:
" Heaven and hell are where the soul receives its reward and punishment after death. Yes, Judaism believes in, and Jewish traditional sources extensively discuss, punishment and reward in the afterlife (indeed, it is one of the “Thirteen Principles” of Judaism enumerated by Maimonides). But these are a very different “heaven” and “hell” than what one finds described in medieval Christian texts or New Yorker cartoons. Heaven is not a place of halos and harps, nor is hell populated by those red creatures with pitchforks depicted on the label of non-kosher canned meat"
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/282508/jewish/What-Happens-After-Death.htm
I think that you know that Jews tend to derive most of their beliefs and practices from the Talmud rather than Torah. In any case, from the Islamic perspective, it's not all that important if the Torah as we have it mentions the afterlife or not, because the Qur'an, the final scriptural revelation, does!
In terms of the Qur'an 27:76, I believe that the term "children of Israel" in the text refers to both Jews and Christians respectively, in the sense that what the Qur'an does is to remove misconceptions that are popularly held, such as on God concept ( The Qur'an categorically rejects the Trinity doctrine, but also the language that describes God, even metaphorically, as one who "rests"). It also denies the assertion that Jesus died via crucifixion, it also views the many alleged moral laps of prophets in the Old Testament (to use the Christian expression) as character assassinations. Similarly the Quranic concept of what the afterlife will look like is clearly presented.
This is a summary of how I see Q 27:76. Thanks.
Hello Waheed. Thank you for responding to so many of my posts!
You cite two very different Jewish perspectives on heaven and hell. The first, that man creates heaven and hell here on earth, I believe is the most common belief among Jews in the West, even among some orthodox Jews. The view is consistent with the Torah in which God's judgement is manifested on the living as in Numbers 16. Korach and his followers are simply swallowed up by the earth. There is no suggestion that they face further punishment.
The second view is an esoteric view that is held by a small sect of Jews. It goes even beyond Maimondides, since Maimonides is speaking of a Messianic era in which God's name will be exalted. (No mention of Hell!)
Have you ever read the Jewish Mourner's Kaddish? It is revealing in how Jews view life. God is in Heaven; the prayer is for the living not for the dead. It's nothing like the Catholic requiem mass!
Yes, indeed, the theology of the Talmud is different from the theology of the Torah. Judaism had to change after the destruction of the Temple for the second time. The Torahic concept of a benevolent God was no longer viable and the Jews needed new ways to understand their religion. Judaism continues to evolve and the Hasidism that you cite is an example one branch of that.
A couple of comments about your example of the Jewish misconceptions that you mention:
1. Shabat. You should look at how this word is used in the Hebrew scriptures. Does this link work? ==> shabat <== I think so! https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_7673.htm Most instances are translated as "ceased", in other words, on the seventh day God had completed His Creation and so He ceased his work. There is no suggestion that God was weary from the work. Jews cease work on the Sabbath in order to spend the day exalting the greatness of God's creation. The teaching is that we all need to take breaks from our material lives to satisfy our spiritual needs. Muslims do the same thing, and even non-religious people do this; we all just approach it in different ways.
2. Retelling cultural history. I find it hard to express how repugnant I find the Islamic revisionism of Biblical stories. How arrogant and narcissistic is it to take another culture's stories and modify them for your own purposes and to conform to your own beliefs and then claim that the originals were "wrong". Jewish prophets were mortal. Only a false prophet would claim otherwise.
Hello N.B.
Thanks for your many comments.
The overall point with regards to the afterlife is that its rejection is not something universally done among Jews.
[1] I am aware of the different renderings and explanations of the expressions "God rests". In Tanakh The Holy Scriptures (JPS translation 1988 edition) the relevant term is rendered "ceased on the seventh day..." but the note to it also says "or rested" (page 4). The NIV Study Bible (Zondervan, 2002 edition) renders as "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing, so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.."
The Islamic perspective is given in the Qur'an 2:255. Other places in the Qur'an identify God as "The ever-creating", showing that the act of creating is still taking place. Where and how may not always be knowable to us, but that is the Quranic perspective.
[2] In terms of "revisionism" and retelling of stories, what I shared before is a religious belief, in terms of identifying what the Qur'an says about them being true . If we remove religion and take it as simply cultural tales, cultures borrow, add and delete from each other all the time. This happens in mythology, music, food, clothing, and just about every area of cultural expression you can imagine. If such usage (if we ignore the religious aspect) is "narcissistic", we would have to level the same charge against all of humanity.Do consider my words here. Thanks.
Thank you, Waheed. I think it is safe to say that you are unable to refute my argument that God's "revelations" concerning Divine Judgement given to Moses and to Muhammad were not the same. You don't seem to be able to explain how this difference is possible. The only explanation I can understand is that at least one of these two "prophets" was wrong. Since Muhammad asserts that Moses was a prophet, then he is asserting that he accepts Moses' "revelation", yet he is also asserting his own "revelation" which is different. This is a contradiction with no resolution, therefore Muhammad must be mistaken on at least one of these assertions.
I don't want to take away from the main theme to address your "what if we remove religion" since we are talking about religion and hence your point is irrelevant.
Non-Believer,
Judaism and Islam are not the same religion no. The Qur'an does not suggest that they should be. It is a common misunderstanding among modern Western non-Muslim critics of Islam that when the Qur'an says it verifies what came before it, that any differences between the religions must falsify this claim. Not so...Judaism and Islam do have differences...the Qur'an says God made some things forbidden for the Jews due to their disobedience, that he did not make forbidden for Muslims. So the faiths are different even according to the Qur'an (yes, you read that right).
In general, you should remember that the Qur'an was revealed into the midst of a pagan polytheist society that did not believe in one God, life after death, prophets etc. Thus when the Qur'an says it is verifying the prior messages, it must be thought of on a more basic level. From a pagan perspective, belief in the aforementioned three examples sure makes Islam look a lot like Judaism. And that's the point. You have to keep the proper perspective. The Qur'an isn't looking at it from the perspective of Judaism, as you are.
Perhaps the teaching about an afterlife and a final judgement did not have a prominent place in early Judaism. But Jesus (AS) refers to it in the NT in a line to the apostles (Matthew 11:24), where he doesn't need to explain the context. It was already clear to them. So the teaching was there. Islam is heavy on the teaching of the final judgement. If you think about it that makes perfect sense as the final message to humanity. Nothing further will be said afterward, so you want to leave off with the most important things.
Hi Shenango. I miss being able to respond to your posts on whyislam.
Both you and Waheed seem to be missing the point of my argument. I am asserting that if you belief there is only one God who is for all of us, then you must believe that there can be only one Truth. If you believe that this Truth is revealed through prophets, then the prophets must be consistently revealing the same Truth.
What is the Truth about Divine Retribution?
In Exodus 20, Moses says: 4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
It is clear from this that the the Truth revealed to Moses is that Divine Retribution acts in this world and not in some world to come. I am not aware of any mention in the Torah of punishment in the hereafter. That is too big of a theological difference from Islam for Muslims to assert that they believe the revelations of Moses.
Non-Believer,
I don't believe the intent of Exodus 20 is to rule out punishment in an afterlife just because people are punished in their earthly life. That's a restriction you're imposing on the passage but that it doesn't say. It's really the argument from silence fallacy.
To rehash what was said earlier, Jews do believe in an afterlife with reward for the good and punishment of evil, that much I know. Furthermore, it is clear from at least the New Testament and the Qur'an that they held such beliefs prior to the coming of Islam. I don't know enough about Judaism to know the scriptural sources Jews use to justify this belief, but it did not come from thin air. It's possible that the Jewish belief was developed and expanded upon by later Jewish prophets. It's also possible that it is preserved in oral teachings of Moses (AS) in the Talmud (the oral 'Torah').
The minimum that the Qur'an requires is that every nation was sent a prophet who taught his people worship of one God and rewarding of good deeds, and punishment of evil ones. How specific they got beyond that is not clear.
Islam represents the final, and thus most developed and complete form of revelation from God. The same or similar concepts exist in Christianity and Judaism, but these are in a more rudimentary, cruder and less developed form. That's a reality Muslims are very comfortable with. You have to learn to crawl before you learn to walk, and so on.
My point to you is that you seem to be confusing development and discontinuity. The former does not equal the latter. If there had been a teaching AGAINST an afterlife in the Torah, then that would be a problem, yes. That would be discontinuous.
I really don't know what more I can say. I really would like to have some honest discussion, but all I see is avoidance of the main issues. You will resort to any form of "argument" to defend your beliefs, however contradictory they are.
The simple reality is that the Torah describes explicitly what the punishment for the very worst crimes is. Sure, if you want, you can mention what the Torah doesn't say. There's a lot that it doesn't say.
At the same time, the Qur'an does have Moses talking about the Hereafter.
If Islam is a sound religion, you should have no difficulty explaining how this is possible.
I have no such difficulty. There is no evidence that the Hebrews of the Old Testament believed in a Hereafter nor that the Jews of 7th Century Arabia believed in it either. Muhammad understood that the Jewish God was not threatening enough to frighten people into strict moral conduct. The concept of eternal damnation was not a new idea, not at all, but it was what Muhammad chose as a way to frighten his followers into obedience.
You'd think that after 1400 years of seeing that Islam has been no more successful in ending immoral behaviour, Muslims would easily abandon this failed approach of fear and intimidation. You portray your god as the most vengeful tyrant imaginable, but Muslims, like anyone else, continue to be sinful. Pretending that it is otherwise does not increase our understand nor improve our ability to deal with this reality.
You criticize the Torah for "anthropomorphisms", yet the Qur'an (and the Torah, too) is guilty of one of the most heinous anthropomorphisms, that of attributing human emotions like anger and hate to Allah. What need does an Almighty God have of these emotions? What benefit can there be for Him to destroy entire cities out of anger? What could be more dystopian than a created world that is hated by its Creator?
Hello N.B.,
I think that with regards to the hereafter, the Islamic position has been pretty well explained, in particular by Shenango's comments above. The Islamic position is that there was a process, an "evolution" if you will- in which certain things were emphasis-ed over other things, in which religious truths would be better or more fully explained at the appropriate times.
In my comments above, I referenced particular Jewish authorities who argue that a hereafter exists, and why and how they believe in that.
In terms of sinfulness, I think there is some nuance that has to be remembered. The Qur'an's initial audience was a people who believe in female infanticide, who would worship idols, even food items, and sometimes do religious rituals with public nudity. The Qur'an's message comes along and tells them to worship God alone, to discontinue killing their daughters, to give up immoral behaviour, to give up racism and usury, to give up destructive habits such as gambling and alcohol abuse, etc.. A good summary can be found in the Muslims's speech to the Abyssinian court when the former migrated there ( before the migration to Madinah).
I'm sure there were still people who did all the above, but upon the success of the Prophet in Makkah, after two decades of opposition, those issues were no longer present in the mainstream. So in terms of personal but also social reformation, Islam was successful in the Arabian context.
So yes, while you can find sinful Muslims even today, as a whole you will find that those sins are not socially acceptable.
You bring up an interesting issue, God's anger as presented in the Qur'an and Islam. I researched this issue years ago, and discovered that "God's Anger" is given (according to the Qur'an) or incurred as a response to great crimes. This comment does not do that issue justice, but the point is is that there is much more depth than what is being imagined.
Some religious people may believe that God "hates the world", however that is not how Islam presents it. God created everyone and everything in the world to serve functions, and while punishments can and do come, they do not come in some whimsical fashion. Those punishments come as a consequence to our actions. Below is a lecture by a Muslim thinker (not that I agree with all of his conclusions or all of his politics or theological arguments) who articulates this very well. It's a long lecture, and I'm not sure if this is precisely the one I want you to view but I will post it anyways for your use. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtH6CKkrRuE
Hi Waheed. This thread is going in a few different directions:
1. What God told Moses compared to what Allah told Musa. This cannot be described as "evolution" or "development" since these revelations were to the same people at the same time. The simple fact is that Muslims claim that Moses was told about the Hereafter however there is no mention of it whatsoever in the Torah. Even the Talmud, as far as I know, doesn't mention the Hereafter. The Talmud dates from a time after Christian theology embraced a notion of Heaven and Hell, so it would be reasonable to think that these rabbis would have rediscovered this "forgotten" revelation had there been such a revelation. How do explain this omission from Jewish scriptures? Your explanation about emphasis doesn't work.
2. Muslim sinfulness. I was thinking specifically about Qur'an 2:84-86, And [recall] when We took your covenant, [saying], "Do not shed each other's blood or evict one another from your homes." Then you acknowledged [this] while you were witnessing. Then, you are those [same ones who are] killing one another and evicting a party of your people from their homes, cooperating against them in sin and aggression. And if they come to you as captives, you ransom them, although their eviction was forbidden to you. So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part? Then what is the recompense for those who do that among you except disgrace in worldly life; and on the Day of Resurrection they will be sent back to the severest of punishment. And Allah is not unaware of what you do. Those are the ones who have bought the life of this world [in exchange] for the Hereafter, so the punishment will not be lightened for them, nor will they be aided.
This sinfulness began nearly the day that Muhammad died and continues unabated to this day. It is not fair to criticize others for crimes you yourself are guilty of!
3. God's anger and hate. It's an anthropomorphism, you must agree. And it's unnecessary for God to act in anger, you must again agree! I'm pretty sure Jews would tell me that God does not hate me; Christians will tell me that God loves me; but your tyrannical God hates me, and I can show you many, many places in the Qur'an where that is stated.
Hi Waheed. I've watched the video with Imam Muhammad al-Asi and responded to his main points in the thread Issues of the Day
As for his views on Divine punishment, I found them vague and inconsistent.
Non-Believer,
There is evidence the 7th century Jews believed in Heaven and Hell. See verses 2:80, where they answered the Prophet (PBUH) that the fires of Hell would only touch them for a limited time, and 2:111 where they said only Jews get into Heaven. The Hebrew Jewish term for Hell is "Gehenna", very close to the Arabic "Jahannum" in the Qur'an. Again, also I'd refer you back to the New Testament, of which there are several examples, but for example Matthew 10:15 where Jesus (AS) speaks of the Day of Judgement to a Jewish city. What the heck is he talking about? And why didn't he feel the need to explain an unfamiliar concept he was introducing? It's because he wasn't introducing a new concept at all. He didn't have to explain it, because he knew his audience was already familiar with it.
I can't answer for why the teaching on the afterlife is not more prominent in the primary Jewish and Christian scriptures than it is, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Jews would probably not agree with your remarks about their religion not teaching the concept of an afterlife.
I detect in your writing hints of Deistic belief, where God created the world, but really doesn't care about how humans act. But you can't say that's what Judaism teaches just because you wish it so.
The difficulty with dialoguing with atheists that I often encounter (and you're no exception) is that they don't typically have a very good religious literacy and tend to see religion in simplistic terms, failing to appreciate nuance and subtlety. Concepts that strike religious folk as obviously linked sail wide above atheists' heads. Making headway with atheists is difficult because they don't have the ability to get that deep into it and their understanding always remains shallow.
The concepts of an afterlife, a day of judgement and heaven and hell are all linked. Purposeful creation of mankind by God demands some sort of purpose. All three Abrahamic religions identify that purpose as the worship of that God. But purpose naturally demands an accounting of fulfillment of that purpose. The day of judgment and the afterlife are that accounting. Is any of this making any sense to you? If Judaism and Christianity did not believe in an afterlife and a judgement with punishment and reward they would have had to invent the ideas at some point for consistency's sake. I really hope this can through to you.
Hi Shenango. I don't know why you belittle me when it ought to be clear to you that I do understand these connections that you mention.
My disagreement with you is not about the differences between what these religions say about the afterlife. I am arguing that Muhammad's claim that he is confirming prior revelations is factually incorrect. He mistakenly believes that the Hereafter was revealed by God to Moses. This claim is not supported by the Torah. Therefore, it is incorrect for Muslims to claim that their religion is somehow a completion of Judaism.
If you could get past defending Muhammad's error, we could have a more meaningful conversation to try to understand the significance of this error. Why did Muhammad invoke Moses's name? Why did he deviate from the text of the Torah? Is he politicizing the Torah and using stories like the story of the Golden Calf to polemicize his enemy, the Jews?
The Hereafter was revealed by God to Moses. What you don't get is that not everything that God revealed to Moses is in the Torah. Prophets had their oral teachings, as Muhammad (PBUH) had the Hadith, so too did Moses (AS). The word "Torah" means "Law" and as such, the content is appropriately mostly law-giving. The rest of Moses' (AS) teachings have been passed down in the Talmud, which is replete with references to Hell.
The Qur'an doesn't make the error of saying the Torah specifically teaches the Hereafter, as in, the concept is to be directly found in its contents. For example, in Q5:32 God says He decreed to the Children of Israel that killing a soul is like killing all humanity. That is found in the Talmud, not the Torah. But the Qur'an only says "We decreed", it doesn't specify that it was decreed in the Torah.
If you feel that it does, then post the verses if you are truthful.
Thanks for you comments, Shenango. I wish you would have offered some help towards the questions I raised in my last post. I'll move forward by looking at how Muhammad has used other biblical stories and see if there's a clear pattern.
Hello N.B.
Just getting some time to share replies to your posts.
I have shared earlier in this thread, as has Shenango, examples of Jews who do accept that there is a life to come. In terms of other things you have shared, perhaps reading it again will help to focus the discussion.
" I was thinking specifically about Qur'an 2:84-86, And [recall] when We took your covenant, [saying], "Do not shed each other's blood or evict one another from your homes." Then you acknowledged [this] while you were witnessing. Then, you are those [same ones who are] killing one another and evicting a party of your people from their homes, cooperating against them in sin and aggression. And if they come to you as captives, you ransom them, although their eviction was forbidden to you. So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part? Then what is the recompense for those who do that among you except disgrace in worldly life; and on the Day of Resurrection they will be sent back to the severest of punishment. And Allah is not unaware of what you do. Those are the ones who have bought the life of this world [in exchange] for the Hereafter, so the punishment will not be lightened for them, nor will they be aided.
This sinfulness began nearly the day that Muhammad died and continues unabated to this day. It is not fair to criticize others for crimes you yourself are guilty of!"
(Non Believer post Feb 19, 2019)
I'm happy you quote this Quranic passage. The only comment I will add to this is that the Quranic commentators assert that one of the reasons that this Soorah, the second chapter of the Qur'an, exists and that it discusses the Israelites so much is in order for God to warn us not to repeat the same mistakes. If and when Muslims violate, we are repeating the same mistakes. In others words, there is a purpose behind repeating this history, and is not some anti-Jewish polemical work!
You mention "Divine Hatred" and anthropomorphism in the Qur'an. The Qur'an tends to make statements such as "Allah does not give guidance to the unjust" "God does not like the wasteful" and similar assertions. The Qur'an says that God cares for and provides for all who live in the universe. We discussed this in the past in the discussion on Al-Faatihah.
The point being is that the Quranic picture of Allah is not one of hatred.
Non-Believer,
What questions in your last post? Your previous post assumed that the Prophet (PBUH) made an error by stating the Moses (AS) taught a belief in the Hereafter in the Torah. I responded that not everything Moses (AS) taught is in the Torah. And of significant note, while we are on the topic, you are quite incorrect in saying in one of your above posts that the Talmud post-dates Christianity. The Talmud was only COMPILED (!) post-Christian era, but that doesn't mean its content is not significantly older!!! :O
Your follow-up questions were premised on the above supposed "error" that I corrected you on. Now that there's no error, what questions do you have left? I believe Waheed addressed your question about the passage of Q2:84-6. Did I miss something?
Thank you for your comments, Waheed.
I largely agree with what you say about Soorah Al-Baqarah. If we look at the circumstances surrounding the time of this revelation, we see Muhammad is preaching a religion which he himself claims is the same religion revealed to the Jews. He is aware that, in spite of receiving Gods commandments, wickedness continued amongst the Jews and he points out many incidents that are documented in the Jewish scriptures of this wickedness. The scribes who compiled these books do not seem to be ashamed of exposing these weaknesses amongst their people; itself a topic that would be interesting to take up with a learned Jew!
So the question becomes: Why would Muhammad expect to be successful in turning people away from wickedness when he is preaching essentially the same message as his predecessors? Hadn't it already been proven that the threat of Divine Judgement did not successful eradicate sin from society? Hasn't the time since Muhammad proven that Muhammad was no more successful than his predecessors?
Isn't it time to be open to finding a better way?
Let's look at Arabia itself before the acceptance of Islam. Female infanticide, idolatry, tribal wars that could last generations, whose initial cause was a camel straying into the land of others, as well as a host of other things.
Actually it may be prudent to quote Ja'far B Abi Taalib's speech to the ruler of Ethiopia. He was the Muslim spokesman, who, when seeking refuge in Ethiopia, gave these remarks.
"
O King, we were a people in a state of ignorance and immorality, worshipping idols and eating the flesh of dead animals, committing all sorts of abomination and shameful deeds, breaking the ties of kinship, treating guests badly, and the strong among us exploited the weak. We remained in this state until Allah sent us a Prophet, one of our own people, whose lineage, truthfulness, trustworthiness, and integrity were well-known to us.
He called us to worship Allah alone, and to renounce the stones and the idols which we and our ancestors used to worship besides Allah.
He commanded us to speak the truth, to honor our promises, to be kind to our relations, to be helpful to our neighbors, to cease all forbidden acts, to abstain from bloodshed, to avoid obscenities and false witness, and not to appropriate an orphan’s property nor slander chaste women.
He ordered us to worship Allah alone and not to associate anything with him, to uphold Salat, to give Zakaah, and fast in the month of Ramadan.
We believed in him and what he brought to us from Allah, and we follow him in what he has asked us to do and we keep away from what he forbade us from.
Thereupon, O King, our people attacked us, visited the severest punishment on us, to make us renounce our religion and take us back to the old immorality and the worship of idols.
They oppressed us, made life intolerable for us, and obstructed us from observing our religion. So we left for your country, choosing you before anyone else, desiring your protection and hoping to live in Justice and in peace in your midst."
The above summarizes how the Muslims perceived the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
From any measure, the Prophet was successful. Arabia accepted Islam. The Muslims went on to create a civilization and as a part of that, revive interests (by translation projects) in the sciences and philosophy. Female infanticide was eliminated. A culture of generosity, brotherhood and piety was created.
Does that mean every single Muslim was a saint? No.
Does that mean that there weren't problems? No!
As I see it, Islam seeks to influence thinking, to get people to come to the reality of things in their own time and capacity. In other words, it is a faith that seeks long term solutions.
Non-Believer,
The purpose of the Prophet's mission and Islam wasn't to eliminate personal sins. You'll note the passage you're questioning is addressed in the collective, as in "you all". It isn't directed at particular individuals. The failure of Israel to adhere to God's laws was a colossal communal failure as a religious nation. Israel broke their covenant with God and earned his curse as a result.
As Waheed alluded to, Islam is not primarily directed to the Jews, but rather to the Quraish, the Prophet's own tribe, rulers of Mecca. Of course it is ultimately a message to mankind by extension, but the Qur'an would remiss in not diverting its attention occasionally to the two main monotheisms in the Abrahamic vein, being that it claims to be a restoration of that original, pure Abrahamic legacy. But the Qur'an does not claim to be the same religion as these two preceding monotheisms. That's a critical distinction to make. Islam is rightfully restoring a truth long obscured by the errors and misdeeds of the Jews and Christians and does not represent a continuation of either religion. It itself is distinguished from these two religions and the Qur'an never lets that fact be forgotten. It's in the last two verses of the first surah.
The Fatihah (Surah 1) is basically a long prayer that declares at the end of it that the mission of Islam is to succeed where these two previous religious nations failed God. Be careful that this means success in a communal sense...not on an individual level...even though a community is made up of individual members. Those who earned God's curse are the Jews, because their community received God's guidance (through revelation) but rejected it as a whole community. Christianity failed in the opposite way, plenty of sincerity, but no guidance. The Muslim ummah would be different than the earlier models of Israel and the Church in having both God's proper guidance and proper obedience and adherence to that guidance.
Hello Waheed. Thank you for your post. There are several points in it that are worth discussing. However, at this moment, I am too distracted by Shenango's post. You have been very patient in trying to persuade me that some of the things that I believe about Islam are false. Nevertheless, here we read Shenango blatantly contradicting some of those things that you have told me.
I hope that you can find the time to respond to Shenango and that the two of you can sort out these differences. I do not wish to be caught in the middle and having to decide which of you is being truthful and which of you is not.
Hello NB,
Our discussions are not live. I think all of us simply reply when and if we have time and desire, so you can share whatever points that you deem worth discussing and still have a discussion with Shenango.
I wish you would not take these black and white positions, saying I am being untruthful or Shenango is being untruthful. Why not just accept that we are sharing what we believe to be the truth? Why not accept that our approaches and styles will be different?
That's fine, Waheed. You cannot say that I did not provide you with the opportunity to protect the integrity of your blog. I have tried to be patient, but I can no longer restrain myself...
The assertion that an entire group of people live under a Divine Curse for something that is said to have happened thousands of years ago is the most preposterously bigoted thing that I have ever encountered in my life.
Waheed, do you really think that Muslims should speak to non-Muslims the way Shenango does? Do you not understand how abrasive it is? The more I encounter the haughtiness of people like Shenango, the more contempt I have for what your religion is teaching.
If I believed in such things, I would say that Muslims have "earned God's curse". More Muslim cities have been destroyed during the last 50 years than cities mentioned in the Bible. I can't imagine what it must be like to raise a family in that part of the world, now under God's curse.
Shenango, how do you explain using your Theory of Divine Curses that the Jews now have dominion over the Palestinians? Clearly, God has reversed his position and how blesses them over the Muslims... if I believed such foolish theories. Is it any wonder that Muslims have such hatred for Israel when it provides evidence contradicting your Theory of God's Plan, another foolish theory that fails to explain anything. Until now, I didn't understand that Muslims now face the same theological crisis that the Jews faced after each of their temples was destroyed.
OK. So I learned something today. I need to be patient while Muslims deal with their personal crises and while they try to understand what has evoked God's Anger against them.
Hello NB,
With regards to your above post, it's very unfair to try to hold me accountable for another poster's opinions. Moreover, that poster, Shenango, is sharing his understanding of these topics in a polite and articulate way. We are both Muslims, but that does not mean our understandings or approach to these issues will be the same.
I would like to remind you that many times on this blog, you have been insulting to me personally (in addition to the occasional rude comments about the religion of Islam or about the Prophet Muhammad) and for the most part, I have not called you out on it.
You have accused me of deliberately misleading people and even lying about Islam, and yet I haven't -in general- made comments about it.
I would urge you to try to see our perspective on these discussions (not just the discussions on texts but on the backrounds and emotions therein) before making any claims of righteous indignation. We are human beings here.
Non-Believer,
I'm not sure where you're getting haughtiness from. I'm just being very plainspoken and open about things. Muslims didn't invent the idea that God cursed Israel for their rebelliousness. Their own Bible said that about them thousands of years ago (see Pslam 106:41 for example, among many others). Yes, I'm echoing that view from an Islamic perspective, but that doesn't make it a uniquely Muslim view. Many Christians would likely tell you the same. If you can't stand us, then you can't stand them either. As we've touched on in this thread, the Abrahamic faiths have threads linking them all together, and this is one of them. I'm baffled as to how you're making out to be an Islamic thing, and just wonder whether you might feel differently if you saw that many Jews and Christians feel the same. There are Jews who will not emigrate to Israel for the fact that they are waiting for the Jewish Messiah to come redeem their nation and make it right again with God before their return to the Promised Land. Yes, I did say "Jews"!
In any case, Islam has always offered an outstretched hand to the Jews with an invitation to get right with God again by becoming Muslims. That's in a sense what the Qur'anic overtures to the Medinan Jews are all about.
As far as your idea that the tables are now turned because Muslims are under siege in Palestine and generally no longer dominant in world affairs as we once used to be, it is true, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that we are under God's curse. That takes an extraordinary act of communal rebellion against God, something Muslims have not done, not a mere passive falling away from the principle of unity and the core values of the faith. In other words, the Muslims may be down for now, but we're not out.
Since we're on the topic of differing opinions amongst Muslims, I will say that I'm in the minority on this one, but it is my opinion that the ingathering of the Jews in modern-day Israel has echoes in Islamic eschatology and our end-time prophecies. Many Muslims dream of the day that we'll unite to finish off modern Israel, but I don't read our texts as suggesting that. I think both sides will be quite surprised by an outcome they didn't count on. But we shall see if we live that long.
I hope this wasn't too "abrasive".
Thank you, Shenango, for trying to be unabrasive.
So tell me this: do Muslims care what non-Muslims think about Islam and about its adherents?
I have read that some say that Islam is the world's most hated religion. You say that I 'hate' Islam. If that is true, then I am certainly not alone and didn't invent this hatred. Given how Muhammad and his followers were forced to leave Mecca, we know that this hatred goes back to the very beginning of Islam. You brush this off with words like "jealousy" and "rivalry", as if labelling this hatred somehow explains its cause.
If someone hated me, I would want to understand the reasons for it.
If I say that Shenango's post of March 2 engenders hatred of Islam, shouldn't you pause long enough to try to understand why I would say that? Shouldn't you care, Waheed, that there are people who would view posts in your blog in this way?
Non-Believer,
In general, Muslims care that non-Muslims have a positive view of Islam, yes, maybe some more so than others. The main reason is that we're always looking to draw people into the faith.
The reason early Islam and the Prophet (PBUH) were hated in Mecca is the claim of exclusivism. Paganism could tolerate many different ideas about gods, mainly because nobody was totally sure where the truth lay. Therefore the pagans could not assert one man's truth over another's. But the certainty about God and the truth about Him that Islam brought meant exclusivism, it meant not just the Prophet (PBUH) having his own god to worship, but also telling everyone else they had to do the same. It was the fact that he was telling them they were wrong that bothered them.
But you aren't going to escape this claim of exclusivity and certainty about God whether you're a Jew, Christian or Muslim. It's not an "Islamic" problem is what I'm trying to get you to see. Hate us if you will (though I don't see anywhere I accused you of that, at least not on this thread), but at least be fair and hate the Jews and Christians just the same. Be an equal opportunity hater. The Abrahamic religions all make exclusive claims to truth, so hate them all equally. Don't single us out for special hatred.
This is more or less the nature of the Abrahamic beast. It comes with the territory, take it or leave it. Understand that we can't change it because that would mean basically the undoing of our religion. We don't want to be hated, but we care to uphold the truth of our faith far more than we care not to be hated. If upholding the truth of our faith means being hated, then so be it. It's a simple matter of priorities. We have a saying in Islam that goes in Arabic "Mukhliseena Lahu Al-Deen Wa Law Kariha Al-Kafirun", which means something like "We sincerely uphold our faith to God, even if the disbelievers (meaning people who think Islam is false) should hate it". We don't prefer to endure your hate, but we will have to endure it if that's what it comes down to.
We can certainly make compromises to live with non-Muslims as our neighbors, but our faith is as it stands. We won't change it because non-Muslims don't like it. Either learn to live with us or don't. Your choice.
Hi Shenango. I agree that exclusivism is a primary cause. However, I disagree with your false equivalence with Judaism and Christianity. I believe that you are imposing Islamic criteria on these people and disregard that the vast majority of today's Jews and Christians are Enlightened. I understand that you have trouble conceptualizing an Enlightened Christian because you would think that it would likewise be the undoing of their religion. This just isn't the case as is evidenced by their huge following. Obviously, there are orthodox denominations within these religions whose followers cause friction with those of us who do not share their beliefs, but the preponderance of moderates is re-assuring to us that these religions do not have hatred of disbelief as part of their doctrine.
Another major difference between Islam and the religions that preceded it is that in order to establish the "legitimacy" of Islam, its founder had to delegitimize these religions. The Qur'an is full of verses which exist primarily for this purpose and it is the preponderance of these verses that led me to reject the Qur'an as a book worthy of praise.
I do understand why you see Islam as "all or nothing". If you read my early posts on whyislam, you will see that I was in search of a "moderate" Islam that isn't viewed as a "compromise"; one that was tolerant of disbelief in a way that made it possible for non-Muslims to tolerate Muslims. Everything that you have said has led me to believe that such moderation is impossible. This is also the context in which I view "outreach" and "interfaith dialog" as being disingenuous, since the only acceptable path forward from the Muslim perspective is the "drawing in" of people into Islam. This is not the perspective of the other parties in these dialogues. Many groups of people believe that it is possible for everyone to believe themselves to be "right" without having to deny each other's "truth". This is what Enlightenment is about.
Non-Believer,
Enlightened Judaism and Christianity are basically watered down, hollowed out, liberalized/secularized versions of these faiths that fundamentalists view as having 'sold out' and become subordinated to the secular public order, and now mostly relegated to the private sphere of an individual's life, if even there at all. This type of non-exclusive faith isn't spiritually satisfying to its believers and consequently they have left in droves while remaining nominally followers of the particular denomination to be included only in figure counts. If God does not exist, why do human beings long for this certainty at their core? Shouldn't the truth of such enlightened faith be self-evident? Why is it that we see the opposite effect?
The church pews have emptied in Europe and only lag somewhat behind in America and the rest of the Western world. According to the Washington Post, at the beginning of the 20th century 80% of Christians lived in Europe or North America. Today that figure is 40% and the epicenter of Christianity has shifted to what social scientists called the "Global South", or the Non-Western World, sub-Saharan Africa and South America. Christians in these regions still practice these faiths in their fundamentalist, exclusivist, un-Enlightened formats. The United Methodist Church very recently recognized this fact and voted to maintain the ban on gay marriage, even if would alien some of the liberal North American leadership, because it would appease the vast majority of its followers in Africa.
The liberal way in which most of Judaism and Christianity are practiced in modern, Western countries is not symbolic of how these faiths should be practiced. You're spinning a pretty twisted picture, my friend.
As for Islam de-legitimizing the earlier monotheisms, again, isn't unique. Christianity had to do this with Judaism in order to declare itself as having superseeded it. Every new faith that comes along has to show why the old faiths don't work anymore, and thus why a new one is needed. That just comes with the territory.
You are correct that there is no such thing as Enlightened Islam currently. There are many reasons for this, but in my mind the most basic one is that the Qur'an argues with its reader using reason, and thus consequently it is difficult to use reason to reform Islam because its arguments are very rational to begin with. You can't ponder the Qur'an's contents and not be compelled to act on them. The book is challenging your critical thinking with every verse. You kind of either have to follow what it says, or forget that you ever read it at all. It's hard to construct a new faith where Muslims can still call themselves faithful followers while basically violating all the old faiths' rules. The cognitive dissonance would be too great because the Qur'an's content is too explcit, direct and compelling. There have been attempts in modern times, such as by the Progressive Muslim Union, Qur'anists (those who reject the use of Hadith), and others like Asra Nomani leading a communal prayer as a woman to challenge the established orthodoxy, but these efforts never really got off the ground because, as I alluded to before, the Islamic message has built-in protection mechanisms to reinforce its classical understanding by scholars, unlike the Bible in many cases.
Non-Believer,
This is a the continuation of my previous response, it was too large to fit into one post:
All you can hope for as an atheist seeking an Enlightened Islam is not that some group of Muslims magically invents it, because that's not going to happen as I said above, but the latter option happens, is that people just start tuning out the message of the Qur'an altogether and focus solely on worldly affairs. That would make for Muslims that would please you, and I already see the modern world pushing many of them in that direction. Whether that will satisfy you or not is up to you I suppose, because without a reformed ideology, there's always a risk the classical faith can be re-discovered and its followers re-awakened at any time.
Either way, this secularizing trend amongst Muslims is still a relatively new phenomenon, shaped by their emigration to the secular West and by media contact with secular ideas projected across TV, radio and internet mediums into the Islamic heartland. If it bears any fruit you'll appreciate seeing, it won't likely be within your lifetime.
Hi Shenango. We're branching in a few directions. It's too bad that the admin on whyislam was so intolerant. It would be better if we could open a few threads there and separate out these different topics.
Let's get this out of the way first, and then get into the meat: It is not for you to say how faiths should be practiced. By doing so, you are the one who is spinning a twisted picture. I have no trouble accepting that different adherents have different views of their religion's doctrine.
I have to remind you that I am not an atheist. What is true is that I do not believe in what Muslims describe as "God". My God does not possess the anthropomorphic emotions that Abrahamic religions attribute to Him; emotions like compassion and mercy, anger and love. Consequently, I reject the value of appealing to God's emotions through prayer, performing acts in an effort to "please Him", and so on. All of this is nonsense, in my view.
I do not reject prophethood, rather I reject the Islamic concept of a prophet. In my view, the concept of a "final prophet" to whom all truth has been revealed is an absurdity. I view claims like these very cynically.
I don't accept your view that Mankind is the "purpose of Creation". I know that you understand that this has far-reaching implications.
I do believe that humans have a "spirit", but I do not associate it with a "god presence".
Like it or not, "Enlightenment" can be thought of as the "religion" of the West. It was during the Age of Enlightenment that our Western institutions took the form that you see today. It is these values that I have been raised in and have accepted for myself. It's not a fixed target, like Islam based on a single book like the Qur'an, but it continues to develop as we gain experience and with that experience we gain understanding.
Enlightened Islam would not come about by a small group using "magic" but as a gradual recognition that Enlightened values are a necessity in our diverse world. It's not a "watering down" but a rejection of what has been shown to be in error and the adoption of something better.
That said, Enlightened Islam may not be a viable concept simply because Islam is built on a shaky foundation, by which I mean, it is built so that if a single structural element is compromised, the entire structure will collapse. We can see that Enlightened Jews and Christians have been able to reject elements of their religions while retaining what is good in those religions.
It's not about pleasing me. It's about preserving a culture that has Enlightened principles as its founding principles. How much resilience do our institutions have when faced with an influx of people who do not respect our principles?
The Jews who came to America early in the 20th Century did not "sell out". They understood how it was possible to remain Jewish within American culture and they also understood the tragedy that befell those who did not escape. The American Jews figured it out almost immediately, so it's possible for Muslims to figure it out while I'm still here to see it.
Hello N.B.
I see vigorous discussion taking place here. It's good to see. It is a bit difficult to follow the discussion in the way that justice demands, due to my own time limitations, so the following are just some quick comments.
(1) The contents of this blog are mainly composed with the agenda of addressing needed and relevant issues, mostly regarding Islam in the modern world, Quranic studies and the like. Whatever I say in terms of the content is what I believe to be true, relevant and valid.
(2) I do not seek to police anyone, Muslim or Non Muslim alike. For the most part, comments, even from detractors, have not been erased. I engage as time and desire allows, and I seek discussion and dialogue, not confrontation and arguments. I seek to create understanding, particularly of the religion of Islam, and back and forth discussion such as in the comment sections allows for both sharing some understanding of Islam and allowing me to see the perspective of other readers, be they Muslim or Non Muslim.
(3) I hope that respectful and polite conversations can continue to take place on this blog.
With regards to some of the new issues which have emerged in the comment thread here, some quick thoughts
[1] The "Western religions" adherents tend to see themselves as exclusive, in the sense that they alone are the recipients of DIVINE salvation at the end. However, that is not problematic. To share a real analogy, I was once asked in media interview regarding Christians who believe Muslims are going to hell, and I replied "I don't mind that they think I am hell bound, so long as they don't try to send me there".
[2] The religions largely have the same basic moral code, and that is what will be needed as they all share challenges in this area. Must go now.
Non-Believer,
I apologize for mis-identifying you as an atheist, as I thought this was the profile label you had used on WhyIslam. Nonetheless, the self-professed beliefs you describe smack of Deism or a quasi-Deist worldview when it comes to God. As I'm sure you're aware, Deism is the belief that God basically created the world and humans to live in it, but then basically left it to its own devices. Thus God is disconnected from His creation. This jives very well with mankind using reason to manage his worldly affairs, and it's no coincidence that many of America's Founding Fathers Deists, being products of the Enlightenment. Deism arose during the time of the Enlightenment and there's a very strong connection between the two: God wants nothing of us, and mankind owes nothing to anyone but his fellow man, so he is totally free to make his own rules as he sees fit.
This worldview is fundamentally at odds with the Abrahamic (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) viewpoint that mankind was created to serve and worship God, and therein mankind finds his meaning in life. It means that God wants us to run not just our personal lives, but also our communities and societies in a way that is obedient to Him, or at least we should make an effort to do so. So God is very much connected with what we humans are doing here on earth. So we have our reason to use, but we just don't have totally free reign with it.
Where God has specified that our affairs be managed a certain way, it isn't just obedience to Him to run things that way, but we trust that it's also the wisest way possible. Part of the Abrahamic belief system is that the Creator knows what He created better than the creation knows itself. He's kind of in a privileged position to tell us what to do since He knows how we work. We THINK we know how we work, and what's best for us. But that's basically an illusion. The technological and scientific progress made during the Enlightenment convinced many that mankind had finally tamed his own destiny, and didn't need to be beholden any longer to false fears of natural phenomena controlled by an aloof deity. Never has it been easier than it is today to believe that we are self-sufficient as a human race and not in need of God to intervene in our affairs. This correlates well with the rise of atheism and agnosticism in modern times. Many people have fallen for that mirage in the desert.
So because we believe that 1) God is connected to the humans He created and demands their worship, and 2) Has specified that He wants us to manage our affairs in certain ways as part of that servitude, you cannot ask us in principle to surrender that view and adopt yours. Your view is based on a wholly different idea of God than we have. If you feel alright with asking us to change our view of God to yours, why can't we do vice-versa?
That's pretty much it for the theoretical discussion...
Now as for practical matters Non-Believer...since we aren't going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change ours...
I'd invite you take a closer look at your countrymen and women who are devoutly of Abrahamic faith. You used the example of the Jews, but the Jews haven't 'figured it out' as well as you seem to think they have. The Orthodox among them still often live in their own segregated neighborhoods where they uphold their religious customs out of view of the public eye. I suspect that if they shared with you their private views on Enlightennment principles that you would similarly be shocked and awed by their responses as you are by Muslims. Just ask those ultra-Haredi with long side curls their views on women!!!
Go west and look at the Mormons, it's the same story. Instead of carving out their own ghetto or neighborhood they built their own state, and the autonomy that allowed in turn gave them the freedom to govern themselves by the dictates of their religion. Of course being admitted as a U.S. state meant their church had to bend to the will of the federal government and outlaw polygamy for example, but a lot of Utah state laws are based on or inspired by Mormon religious practices. Some suspect polygamy is still secretly practiced, though not officially sanctioned.
Even your average down-the-middle, unsuspicious white Evangelical Christian might profess some beliefs in private that would make you uncomfortable and they would likely shy away from sharing in a public forum.
Muslims are the latest alien newcomers to the West, but if you look around, and in the right places, you'll find a whole subversive lot of varying religious stripes that has bowed to Enlightenment values in their public life, but while trying to skirt those values where they run afoul of their religious beliefs in private. We're in very good company rest assured.
Where the conspiracy theories come in is the idea that Muslims are somehow colluding as a united group to undermine the Enlightenment values that secular Westerners such as yourself hold so dear. Nothing could be so unjust as it is untrue. That's where the anti-Shari'ah right-wing nuts have really jumped off the deep end. Just because we hold a different set of values as individuals who are part of the same faith community, it doesn't mean we are colluding as a group to establish them as the law of the land or to impose them on the non-believing majority. A hundred individuals doing the same exact thing in their own way are just that, it does not mean that their efforts are a coordinated conspiracy against the established values of the majority.
Like other religious communities in the West, we would be happy to be left alone to manage our affairs as we best see fit.
But if you're the type of person who needs ALL of your fellow countrymen and women to subscribe privately to the same kinds of Enlightenment values that you've internalized, beyond merely subordinating themselves to those values in their public lives, you need to wake up and open your eyes because that's never gonna happen.
Waheed, when you put "Western religions" into quotes, I don't know what you're referring to. The sort of exclusivity you're describing was certainly a characteristic of 15th and 16th Century Christianity. However, most Christians today that I've talked to do not have views like what you are insinuating. Quite the opposite, they are overwhelmingly inclusive. There are exceptions, of course, some of which are mentioned in Shanango's post.
I also don't agree with your assessment "I don't mind that they think I am hell bound". This is a point I've made over and over again and it is a point you ought to pay more attention to: People do not treat people who they think are hell-bound the same way as they treat their own kind. One of the things I found truly surprising about whyislam is the disrespectful way that the non-Muslims were routinely treated, and that the Muslims didn't seem to notice. You dismiss us with a disparaging term and ignore the problem.
You write: The religions largely have the same basic moral code. Have you ever thought about the implications of the fact that this statement is much broader than you state? Not just religions, since the same basic moral code has been present in all cultures. This, and much more, is captured very simply in the Bible in John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.. "In the beginning" means before there were prophets and before there was religion, right? "The Word" exists whether we have religions or not.
Shenango, thank you for the apology, but really there is no need. I believe that I identified on whyislam as "Secular Humanist", which probably implies atheist to most people. However, I see Humanism as something that acts in only part of the domain that is normally included by religion. If your description of "Deist" is at all accurate, I'm not that. I also think that most Age of Enlightenment Deists, if they were living in today's milieu, would not identify as such based on your assessment.
You make many assertions based on your anthropocentric view of the universe. Such a view was entirely reasonable in Medieval times but we have learned too much about the universe to continue to hang onto such excessive pride.
Rational people, if they are also wise, do not overestimate their knowledge and they continually challenge their assumptions and their conclusions. They are eager to reconsider their views in the face of new evidence. It is absurd to assert that an understanding of reality based on observations and evidence is some sort of "mirage in the desert". By contrast, your assertions about God's connection to humans is not based on any evidence at all.
As for your false equivalence about asking each other to change: You are unable to change because your book is closed. The only way you could change is if you opened your mind to the possibility that you are wrong, but you are unwilling to do that. My situation is the exact opposite: there isn't anything that isn't open for discussion. Not only am I able to admit that I could be wrong about something, I'd be delighted to be corrected. You merely have to show me the evidence.
I'm not sure what your point about these extreme groups is. It doesn't disprove my assertion that it is possible to be Jewish or Christian and accept the universality of the human condition and to approach life and its challenges in a rational way.
Since you seem so fond of false equivalence arguments, try this one on for size: You say that it is unjust to say that the growth of the Muslim population in the West is a threat to Western values. Can I not say that it is unjust the way Muslims accuse the West of trying to subvert Muslim values? Muslim posts are filled with this irrational fear and with admonitions to avoid contact with our corrupting influence!
Non-Believer,
Contrary to what you stated, my assertions are based on a theocentric view of the universe, not an anthropocentric one. Having said that, I'm always open to reconsidering my views in light of new evidence. You misunderstand completely. I'm not asserting that an understanding of reality based on observations and evidence is a mirage. That is a sound guiding philosophy, but it has its limits. Rather the mirage is believing wholeheartedly in the sufficiency of such a philosophy as end-all-be-all. Take our smart phones, for example. No one can argue that they've improved our lives tremendously, but they've also shortened our attention spans and unhealthily decreased our patience. The world is replete with examples like this where mankind has developed things intended to improve his life, only to discover unforeseen ill consequences that the best prior research failed to predict. Ill consequences should not slow down our progress, no, but it takes a wise person to see that these paradoxes will always leave us unfulfilled in some capacity or another, and therefore should make us realize this is not where human fulfillment comes from.
The examples I referenced aren't extreme groups, and their members would likely take offense at being labeled extremists. Yes, you can be Jewish or Christian, or even Muslim for that matter and approach life's challenges in a purely rational way, but that would be like wearing your religion on your sleeve, but not living up to its obligations. God wants us to tackle these challenges in certain ways. That's what revealed religion is all about. How much can you set aside this prescribed guidance, and just rely on your own rationality, and still call yourself a faithful member of that faith? Just because you've found Jews or Christians comfortable with calling themselves that who have agreed to set aside their faith's wisdom, it doesn't mean anything.
Lastly, yes, I agree that where Muslims accuse the West of trying to subvert them with its values. Western influence is corrupting, there is no doubt of that, but that doesn't mean that non-Muslim Westerners are actively colluding or conspiring to corrupt innocent minds. They're doing it quite passively without realizing that its influence is corrupting.
On this subject of liberalism and modern Islam, this recent opinion piece by a Muslim in the NY Times is right up your alley. You may find it interesting:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/opinion/america-islam.html
Your theology is theocentric. Good to know!
I don't think that philosophically-minded people are unaware of the limitations of human knowledge, nor are they unaware of the problems of unintended consequences. However, for the most part, they don't turn to religious explanations as a way of bridging this "insufficiency". I also don't think that people have a such a common notion of "fulfillment" that you can define some sort of fulfillment as the "be-all-end-all" of human endeavour.
My reference to "extreme" is in the context of what some philosophies call the "Middle Way" or the "Golden Mean". I don't care if the ultra-orthodox take offence at being accused of not choosing a moderate path. Classical Islam acknowledges this challenge and provides a clever allegory in which Muhammad pleads with Allah to moderate the number of prayer times. After all, without such a directive, adherents would naturally assume that the more prayer the better it would be. I'm sure you can point out to me other examples where Classical Islam warns against excessive religious practices. Religion ought not be seen as a competition to see who can impress a deity with his greater piety.
Moderate followers aren't setting aside their faith's wisdom, not at all. They embrace their faith's wisdom wholeheartedly and with great conviction while rejecting those parts which, collectively, they no longer see as wisdom. As I've pointed out, Muslims don't seem able to reconsider their views when it comes to wisdom, relying on the words of an ancient "prophet" over the analysis of millions of people who have carefully examined all of the evidence.
I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or simply shrug my shoulders. As if corruptive influences are somehow uniquely Western and therefore Western influences requires special attention, and as if people in the West lack an understanding of the challenges of living a righteous life.
I don't know how to take the opinion article. It is full of "dog whistle" words like "blending into American life", "creeping liberalism", "spiritual disease", "alarming signs of individualism", "feminist notions", "bodily autonomy", "this liberal trend", "skyrocketing acceptance of gay marriage", "anything-goes social liberalism", "a political liberalism that accepts a pluralist framework for society", "progressive narrative", "social Muslims", "diversity as a value", "worried that this may go too far", "a thoughtfully committed Muslim fears...". Wow, yes, it was hard to get through it all.
Then, after airing every one of Muslims' fears and worries, he turns around and says that he sees the trend as promising and expresses his opinion that Islam can open up to rationality, individuality, tolerance and freedom.
I'm not sure whom he is speaking to. Is he telling non-Muslims that the trend with younger Muslims is towards liberalism, just as it was a century or two ago among Catholics and Jews? Is he telling Muslims not to worry about this liberalising trend because it is transformative in a positive way and Muslims should embrace it?
Sorry, I'm just confused that the title contains a word "creeping" which is normally taken as derogatory, but at the end he seems to be embracing it as a positive trend.
I'm sure you can straighten me out!
Non-Believer,
I didn't say my theology is theocentric. I said my worldview is theocentric.
Your next paragraph we can actually agree on, but we aren't talking about excessive piety or religious practice. What we're really talking about is worldviews or our approach to life. Basically, the way I see it as follows, people in modern Western societies fall into one of three categories, nuances aside.
1. Conservative Religion
-Man was created by God, exists to serve God, and hence man operates at God's convenience. God expects certain things of us, and the more specific they are, the more potential for conflict with the ways of non-believers. These people make sometimes extreme sacrifices that isolate them from the rest of society in order to stay obedient to God.
2. Liberal Religion
-Man's convenience IS God's convenience. Liberal Jews and Christians, when they encounter conflict between their modern societies and their faith's teaching, just say that their faith's teaching actually agrees with modern trends when it doesn't. Gay marriage? No problem! Didn't you know that's actually what Christ preached?!!! They creatively re-interpret their beliefs to weasel out of any potential conflicts with modern life. Or, if they cannot do that, they sweep any teachings that are not conveniently compatible with the way the winds are currently blowing under the rug. Because of this, these people are seen as 'sell-outs' or hypocrites by #1.
3. Secular Humanism/Deism
-God exists to serve man. God, if He's even out there somewhere, is happy with anything man does and is not involved in his affairs. God exists for man's convenience. Perhaps he's a fatherly shoulder to cry on when we're down, but so all-loving that he is accepting of any societal trends. He has no guidance to offer and wants nothing special of his creation. He's basically left us to figure out life on our own.
You clearly fit into the 3rd category, while waheed and I are in the first. Honestly, the demands of living in a secular modern society find me concluding that though I do my best to stay in the first category in principle, I'm often being pulled into the second category in a practical sense, because I'm not able to be as obedient to God as I could be, and often find myself unintentionally sacrificing His requests of me for my fleeting and worldly desires.
But you on the other hand, have no problem with greedily asking waheed and I to move ourselves from the first to the second categories. It's disturbing to me that you don't even have any compunction about doing it. What's most troubling to me is that I detect in you a deep lack of empathy for category ones and a complete lack of understanding as to why they think the way they do, or how it feels to walk in their shoes. The way you believe about God drives your view on everything else. So does ours.
So in the end it all comes back to your personal beliefs about God and what He wants of us. We can't agree on anything else because we can't agree on what the right view of God is.
First, let's deal with your category 3:
God exists to serve man. This is simply ridiculous. I decry how anthropocentric Islam is and you assert this? How could any man think that God serves man? What kind of definition would you need for "God"?
God is happy with anything man doesMan does not make God happy, or sad, or arouse any other human emotion in God. God is not human.
Perhaps he's a fatherly shoulder to cry on when we're down, but so all-loving that he is accepting of any societal trends. That sounds more Christian than anything that I believe.
He ... wants nothing special of his creation.Yup, there's your anthropocentric bias showing.
He has no guidance to offer ... He's basically left us to figure out life on our own.Finally, you're partly right. It is indeed left for us to figure out. Though you don't seem to recognize it, you think so, too. You've figured out all kinds of things, like: that a 7th Century Arab was a messenger from God and that he left behind a book which is an unassailable and complete source of wisdom. You think you've figured out what this book means, even when the book itself states that it can be unspecific (Q 3:7) and requiring you to figure it out and that many misunderstand what it says.
Think of it this way, Shenango: Think about your relationship with the sun. Does the sun care about your actions? Do you "serve" the sun? Does the sun "serve" you? Is there any question of "convenience"? Yet, all life on Earth owes its existence to the sun. We are subject to the sun's laws and woe be to anyone who doesn't respect them. Well God isn't the sun and the sun isn't God. God is infinitely greater than the sun and whatever you say about your relationship with the sun is infinitely amplified when considering your relationship with God.
We all have to "figure out life on our own". We are not alone in this quest. There are libraries and scholars and people who have more understanding than I do whom I can ask when I am unsure. You make it sound like Humanists just randomly deviate from their fundamental principles on a whim, or that we are short sighted and never consider the long term implications of our choices.
... 2
part 2:
Yes, indeed, I am asking Waheed to change. That is my purpose in posting comments in his blog; it is no secret. If other people read my comments and are influenced by them, then so much the better. However, the change that I am hoping for is not what you are saying.
The Qur'an is a big problem for non-Muslims. We see it as filled with hatred for everyone who does not believe as you do. Muslims who adopt the attitude of Muhammad are forced into a hate-filled frame of mind when it comes to us. We cannot adopt a man like Muhammad as a prophet, that is clear. So here I sit, reading verses of the Qur'an telling me how hated I am and I now know that I am powerless to change it. What should I do?
If you read my first comment in each thread in this blog, you will see that the majority are in the form of a complaint that Waheed is teaching exclusivity. He repeatedly claims that non-Muslims are immoral and that the only path to morality is strict adherence to Islamic doctrine. This is the change that I seek.
Stop teaching hate:
Don't unjustly criticize non-Muslims whose values are much the same as yours. Read our writings with an open mind and understand that we are not being guided by Satan.
Don't unjustly criticize the Jews and Christians and insist that the Bible is "corrupt". Why not, instead, praise those parts of the Bible that ought to resonate with you, like Psalm 145? (there's a discussion of this in another thread) Can you imagine the impact to your relationship with them if you would adopt their song of praise into your own tradition?
Do teach that we are all in this together even if we are on slightly different paths.
It seems to be a universal truth that Muslims are hated by non-Muslims everywhere in the world. I've asked you why this is. Let me answer:
We hate you because you hate us. You teach hate and we become angry and then sometimes really bad things happen. It starts with you, my friend.
"Yes, indeed, I am asking Waheed to change. That is my purpose in posting comments in his blog; it is no secret. If other people read my comments and are influenced by them, then so much the better. However, the change that I am hoping for is not what you are saying.
The Qur'an is a big problem for non-Muslims. We see it as filled with hatred for everyone who does not believe as you do. Muslims who adopt the attitude of Muhammad are forced into a hate-filled frame of mind when it comes to us. We cannot adopt a man like Muhammad as a prophet, that is clear. So here I sit, reading verses of the Qur'an telling me how hated I am and I now know that I am powerless to change it. What should I do?
If you read my first comment in each thread in this blog, you will see that the majority are in the form of a complaint that Waheed is teaching exclusivity. He repeatedly claims that non-Muslims are immoral and that the only path to morality is strict adherence to Islamic doctrine. This is the change that I seek." (quote from N.B.)
Hello NB,
Time constraints have prevented me from keeping up with the blog, but felt it was needed to share a reply, in particular to these lines above.
I have never believed or taught that Non Muslims are em masse "immoral". We have gone through this sort of accusation before on this blog. Nor have I claimed that all Muslims are saintly. I do believe that Islam- as given in the Qur'an-is a completion of the Divine message for mankind, but that does NOT translate into the manner you have wrongly characterized my posts and speeches. I find your accusations here ironic because my Muslim critics assert that I am actually too close to Non Muslims and am not critical.
The perspectives I give is that of a believer. A Christian can believe what he or she wants, the Jew can believe what he or she thinks prudent, and that is not problematic for me.
With regards to the issue of Psalms, I don't understand why you are bringing that up again. Sometimes I invoke God using the Quranic words, sometimes the words of the Prophet (peace be on him), sometimes my own words. Can't I invoke God the way I see fit? Why do you insist I use the words of Psalm 145? We discussed this at length in the thread on Soorah Al-Faatihah.
In any case, I do not hate Non Muslims, not at all. I'm sorry you are reading those thoughts into my writings. Being critical or having a different take on certain theologies/texts does not mean that we are hateful towards anyone.
" Waheed, when you put "Western religions" into quotes, I don't know what you're referring to. The sort of exclusivity you're describing was certainly a characteristic of 15th and 16th Century Christianity. However, most Christians today that I've talked to do not have views like what you are insinuating. Quite the opposite, they are overwhelmingly inclusive. There are exceptions, of course, some of which are mentioned in Shanango's post." (NB post from 3/13/19)
Academia tends to place the three monotheistic religions as "western", even though none of them originated in the West, I used quotation marks to indicate irony. I disagree with your views here. Most Christians believe that their way or religious understanding is the only way there is. That belief of theirs does not necessitate that they would treat Muslims with contempt or disrespect, nor do how Muslims tend to view Islam vis a vis other religions mean that Muslims would have to be disrespectful or contemptuous with Christians.
" You write: The religions largely have the same basic moral code. Have you ever thought about the implications of the fact that this statement is much broader than you state? Not just religions, since the same basic moral code has been present in all cultures. This, and much more, is captured very simply in the Bible in John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.. "In the beginning" means before there were prophets and before there was religion, right? "The Word" exists whether we have religions or not." (N.B.'s post)
I can agree that the same basic moral code is universally found, however 1 John 1:1 is not an evidence at all for that. Christians have been debating for generations about the implications of that verse and have been explaining it in various ways, none of which match what you have said here. Nonetheless, I do agree- it's just that the Biblical text you cite here does not prove your case.
Non-Believer,
I still believe that I've characterized the views of secular humanism and Deism more or less correctly. Nobody believes that God exists for man's convenience? Well, no, clearly not in so many words. But stop and ponder what it means to believe in a creative God who rendered all of creation existent and so took purposeful action with regard to us, and yet some of us have fooled ourselves into thinking that He doesn't have any will toward us at all, leaving only our own will for ourselves. God stays accessible, but only when we want to access Him. Otherwise we can just basically keep Him comfortably out of sight and out of mind, the same way, to use your analogy, we know the sun is out there, but it plays a passive role in our lives. We use the sun to our convenience, we lay out in front of it when we want a tan, then we turn the shades over when we don't want to see it. We subject the sun to our will, even though we cannot physically control the sun.
I totally reject your view that this amounts to some sort of anthropocentrism where man is the center of the universe. We're talking about a sentient being (God) creating another sentient being (mankind). Angels and demons aside, do you know any other sentient beings? Yes, the universe is mind-blowingly large, but we simply haven't found any other intelligent life out there yet. How are those satellites in the desert beaming signals into outer space for the last few decades doing? We might be small in terms of the universe, but fairly special relative to God in our being an intelligent, sentient species. It's a fairly unique relationship we have to our Creator that the rest of the universe doesn't. Wouldn't you agree?
It is for this reason that the idea of God, who is a sentient/intelligent being, purposefully creating another kind of sentient/intelligent being is so significant, and has to have some meaning. The laws of physics dictate that every action has an equal, but opposite reaction. God created us. How do we react to that? How do we react to Him?
Gods demand worship of their intelligent creations. That is what being a deity is all about (Q. 23:91). The Qur'an called the Meccans out of worshiping deities that they had acknowledged did not create anything themselves. Instead it calls on them to worship God who actually did create them (Q. 43:87). In that sense you are the same as them, NB, because you seek to force an illogical disconnect between an intelligent creator and his intelligent creatures/creations. That does not speak to me of Enlightenment and rationality.
Hi Waheed. You claim that you have never taught that Non Muslims are em masse "immoral". Are you playing some sort of word game with me? I can find all sorts of blanket condemnations in your posts, for example, today I came upon the following heading: "Opponents of Truth are intellectually bankrupt". You and I both know that when you say "Truth" with a capital "T", you mean Islam, the only Truth that you will acknowledge. So, by direct implication, I am "intellectually bankrupt". I identified many issues like this in your thread "Foundations for proper thinking: reflections on Soorah Al-Baqarah's opening verses". Perhaps you should review and re-consider the conversation there.
It doesn't surprise me if some Muslims criticize you. In your responses to me in that thread, you attempt to create an unorthodoxed meaning for "Kaafir", even though the very verses which are the subject of that thread (Q 2:2-7) make it clear what the criteria are to be a "believer" and what the consequence are for those of us who do not accept those criteria. There is no middle ground to be found in these verses. Ultimately, only someone who hates another would say that a person deserves severe chastisement. (Q 2:7)
I continue to bring up Psalm 145 because of your inability to do what is right in responding to my point. Even though I don't personally share the vision of the Bible as a whole, I have no trouble praising those part which I find praiseworthy and criticizing those parts which I do not. Modern Christians and Jews, who understand the context of the Bible, who have a good understanding of who the authors were and what their motivation was for writing as they did, are able to both praise and to criticize the Bible. However, it seems that Muslims are unable to praise any part of the Bible and are only interested in nitpicking those verses which don't align with their ideology.
Just as decreeing chastisement on others is a sign of hate, so is the inability to praise the good in others a sign of hate.
I don't know what you think is controversial about John 1:1. "Logos" existed before religion, and the audience, probably Ephesians, had a well-developed understanding of this Greek concept. Religions didn't invent "logos" or "moral codes" any more than Isaac Newton invented gravity.
Hi Shenango. I'm not saying whether or not you've characterized Deism correctly, only that your characterization does not apply to me. I'm not a Deist. I'm also not saying anything about the relationship between Humanism and purposeful creation. It's hard to generalize since we don't have a single source of complete knowledge like you do, but I think that most are apathetic on the question of creation.
God stays accessible, but only when we want to access Him I don't know what this means. I've already stated that the benefit of prayer is real, personal and psychological, but that a God who does not have human emotions does not respond to supplications. I don't know where this "convenience" notion is coming from since His laws continue to apply whether we are mindful or not.
Is God sentient? That, too, seems like an anthropomorphism.
But I do know other sentient beings, don't you? My dog is sentient, though many people don't like to acknowledge that "lesser" animals have human-like qualities. Like us, he has emotions and shows his emotions through behaviours and body language. I know when he is excited, bored, disappointed, and so on. He feels pain and many species have shown complex emotions like grief. He also remembers previous outcomes and makes intelligent decisions. Where does he fit into your scheme?
There are other kinds of "intelligence", too. Have you ever observed colonial insects like ants or bees? We know that they communicate, even if we don't fully understand how. They behave in a coordinated way that shows a form of intelligence.
So, no, I don't overestimate our uniqueness. I also don't overestimate where we are in the progress of our own evolution. If man doesn't destroy himself first, the man 100,000 years from now could be significantly different from the man today, and 100,000 years is a very short time. We could be just in our infancy.
And no, God does not demand worship. Sure, if it means something to you, no problem. Is it something you do to satisfy God's needs? (surely not; God doesn't need us!) So it must be for your needs. So it can't be something that is demanded of you.
I can't force a disconnection between two things that are not connected in the way that you describe. You are more like the Meccan polytheists than I am since you both believe that praying to deities will be answered. I haven't seen evidence that your God listens to you any better than their Gods.
You seem to be placing a whole lot of emphasis on a notion that certain obligations arise out of our self-awareness. Yes, we are definitely self-aware and I can't say whether my dog is or not. Just because we are able to ask the question "why are we here?" doesn't mean that the question has as much relevance as you are creating for it.
Hello NB,
Thanks for your comments.
" Hi Waheed. You claim that you have never taught that Non Muslims are em masse "immoral". Are you playing some sort of word game with me? I can find all sorts of blanket condemnations in your posts, for example, today I came upon the following heading: "Opponents of Truth are intellectually bankrupt". You and I both know that when you say "Truth" with a capital "T", you mean Islam, the only Truth that you will acknowledge. So, by direct implication, I am "intellectually bankrupt". I identified many issues like this in your thread "Foundations for proper thinking: reflections on Soorah Al-Baqarah's opening verses". Perhaps you should review and re-consider the conversation there." (Non-Believer's post)
I think you should do a review likewise of the posts in question. A careful examination of the article on Soorah Al Baqarah, for example, should reveal that the opponents of truth that are under discussion (and which will be explained a bit later as well) are those powerful types, responsible for great crimes in the world. If you choose to identify with such, that is your choice, however we are not doing some sort of mudslinging of a people simply because they are non Muslims.
" It doesn't surprise me if some Muslims criticize you. In your responses to me in that thread, you attempt to create an unorthodoxed meaning for "Kaafir", even though the very verses which are the subject of that thread (Q 2:2-7) make it clear what the criteria are to be a "believer" and what the consequence are for those of us who do not accept those criteria. There is no middle ground to be found in these verses. Ultimately, only someone who hates another would say that a person deserves severe chastisement. (Q 2:7)" (N.B.)
It's interesting that you make this assertion, because [1] It shows that you did actually understand what I was conveying, in that the Quranic word "Kaafir" is far deeper of a word than simply rendering it as "Non Muslim". After all, looking at context, in Soorah Al Baqarah itself, we see it as connected to a great many crimes on a vast scale.
If you do understand what I wrote in that thread (and it appears you did understand, in that you say you are not surprised about Muslim criticisms of my views), you should not have any reason to accuse me of teaching hate or that Non Muslims are a mass of complete and totally immoral people. {2} In terms of orthodoxy, what we have described is in line with what the Qur'an says. The categories of Kufr that are mentioned by scholars and thinkers of the past (and present) also have recognition of the fact that words like this should not be thrown around easily, and that there is nuance in everything. In Islamic jurisprudence, one such example is Kaafir Harbi, one who is at war with the government. Also sometimes mentioned is the idea of Kufr duun al Kufr, that something may be said which sounds and feels like rejection of Islam (i e Muslims rejecting Islam) but actually is not. It also is sometimes used to refer to hypocrisy and pretending faith.
These particular terms are not in the Qur'an, and it is the Qur'an that is my primary concern in this discussion. That is a longer discussion, one which perhaps belongs in the thread on Soorah Al-Baqarah.
" I continue to bring up Psalm 145 because of your inability to do what is right in responding to my point. Even though I don't personally share the vision of the Bible as a whole, I have no trouble praising those part which I find praiseworthy and criticizing those parts which I do not. Modern Christians and Jews, who understand the context of the Bible, who have a good understanding of who the authors were and what their motivation was for writing as they did, are able to both praise and to criticize the Bible. However, it seems that Muslims are unable to praise any part of the Bible and are only interested in nitpicking those verses which don't align with their ideology." (NB)
There are nice things in the Bible, beautiful things. No one denies that. I quote the Bible sometimes, in particular situations, and not always in a polemical fashion (as I suspect you will assert otherwise). The issues was your harping on this notion that I should use this passage for supplication and worship. What I tried to convey to you is is that I am happy to use what I already use.
" Just as decreeing chastisement on others is a sign of hate, so is the inability to praise the good in others a sign of hate." (N.B.)
In another thread, you will probably recall, you disputed when I shared that the Qur'an does not generalize or stereotype. It recognizes, for example, not only pious Christians, but it also recognizes Jews who are exceptionally honest. Does the Qur'an disagree with many aspects of Jewish and Christian doctrine? Yes it does! However that does not translate into hatred.
" I don't know what you think is controversial about John 1:1. "Logos" existed before religion, and the audience, probably Ephesians, had a well-developed understanding of this Greek concept. Religions didn't invent "logos" or "moral codes" any more than Isaac Newton invented gravity."
The text normative translation is "In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, and the word was God". This verse has been used to justify Christian doctrines about Jesus existing in the beginning of creation, arguing that Jesus-upon whom be peace- was in fact God.
While it has been years since I have studied this text and the discussion around it, I do recall some alternative perspectives on the translation and rendering of this Biblical verse. "In the beginning was the word, the word was with a god..." It alters the traditional rendering of this text, to show that Jesus was NOT God. Admittedly this is a long issue, for which I could at another time get the sources to share, but the point I was making - in terms of your citation of this NT text- was that while your point (that globally the moral code is almost the same) is valid, John 1:1 is not an evidence to support it.
Hi Waheed. You provide a long response to some rather simple points of mine. I'll make this even simpler. I tell friends of mine who are interested in Islam to start by reading Surah Al-Baqarah, 24 verses or even just the first 7 verses, and then for them to tell me what they think.
It is clear to me why this chapter was put at the beginning. These verses define the "us" and the "other" of Islam, something that Islam would want to put up front. I have tried to insert your phrase "those powerful types, responsible for great crimes in the world" into a verse in a coherent way, but I don't see how that is possible. In short, your explanation is unconvincing and it lacks evidence to support a reading different from the clear reading of these verses. I simply don't understand the point of you responding in such an unconvincing way.
Hello N-B,
In terms of the second chapter of the Qur'an, it's opening verses, all of that has to be read slowly and contextual. Also, a good knowledge of Arabic, and careful reading.
If you read the article again, and take a closer look at the verses themselves, it should be apparent that the Qur'an uses Kaafir in connection with those great crimes. This does not only appear in Soorah Al Baqarah, but in other places, such as Soorah 8 and Soorah 9.
If you don't find this convincing, that is not our fault. Nonetheless, I have been studying Islam, and the Qur'an, for a great many years, and while understanding can always be enhanced and deepened, what the article states is my overall understanding of how Kufr and its related words are used in the Qur'an. Kufr is a word which is rich in meaning, and it is clearly used in the Qur'an as more than simply "Non Muslim".
For someone interested in looking at Islam, there are shorter or more focused texts within the Qur'an that I recommend, but I would not recommend- as an introduction- reading the entirety of Soorah Al Baqarah. Even in the time of the Prophet, it is said- for example, that 'Umar ibn Al Khattab took seven years to memorize it.
There are other posts on this blog which are relevant for this issue. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a look at the study notes. One of the posts on that is found at the link below.
https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2017/07/study-notes-soorah-al-hijr-quran-1510-30.html
Waheed, you should have figured out by now that I take quite some time before I post. You are suggesting that I should read these 6 short verses slowly. You are saying that I can't understand the nuance of this language. You are saying that only Arabic requires consideration of context to fully understand the meaning of words. You can hide behind the excuse "you don't really understand the Qur'an" only for so long.
Understanding the Qur'an is indeed problematic because there is often little context for its words. Nevertheless, that doesn't guarantee that your personal understanding is the best understanding. Q 2:6 follows Q 2:2-5, verses which provide context. Maududi confirms this in his tafsir for Q 2:6 writing: "That is, they refused to believe and fulfil all or any of the above mentioned six conditions. " (E.N. 9) You may disagree with him, but please don't accuse me of ignorance for agreeing with his assessment.
You mention another post which refers to another verse with a different Arabic word, namely, "Mujrimeen" in Q 15:12. Researching this word, it appears to be more common in the early chapters and is translated as "the sinners", "the guilty", "the criminals", and other words like this. You say that ""Mujrimeen" [Criminals] and Kaafireen [Rejectors] are terms referring to the same reality." I respectfully disagree. Let me explain:
What Islam and some other religions do is connect belief to righteousness and they connect disbelief to sin. Oversimplifying a little: these religions assert that disbelief is the cause of sin. Ask yourself this: Do you think it is possible for someone who does not believe in all of those things listed in Q 2:2-4 to avoid sin? This is answered in Q 2:7.
It is not your fault that your arguments are unconvincing. Your arguments are unconvincing because they are built on false premises. When the words of the Qur'an do not accord with what you yourself actually think, you are forced to talk unconvincingly around what the Qur'an says. That's not my fault.
Hello NB,
What I'm saying is that reading it slowly and also Arabic, one can get something far different than simply reading it the way one reads a text message. Also, the context for its words is often right there- in the context.
In other words, the meaning of Kaafir, for example, is given right in the text, in the text which surrounds a particular word. In addition to this, in the Qur'an the concept of Tauheed is connected to that of justice. I think we discussed this in another article's comment section.
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.
I made reference to Arabic because in Arabic, just as in English, the noun would be followed by descriptive qualities, by adjectives. Perhaps this is making things unnecessarily complicated, but the point is that the definitions of important terms/concepts are given right there in the Qur'an.
The cause of "sin" does stem- atleast partly- from rejection, in one sense or another. This is not to be confused as a proper name or a proper noun, in the way that "John" is a proper noun. So the Qur'an speaks of "rejectors", but it also speaks of "people of scripture" "Jews" "Christians" "helpers of Allah" "submissive ones", "Criminals" and the like. The Qur'an can use some terms as synonyms, but it can also be used to indicate distinctions.
I don't want to derail everything too much. This has been examined in that other thread.
Waheed, I have responded to this comment by adding a comment to the thread on Soorah Al-Baqarah. http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2017/12/foundations-for-proper-thinking.html
Non-Believer,
God being accessible when we want Him to is just that. It means using Him for support at your own convenience. You're going through a time of trouble in your life and you call on him when you need him, but otherwise you don't think about God and what He might want. I'm not saying "you" here as in you personally, NB, but that is what a secular humanist who believes in God would related to God.
As far as the animal kingdom possessing attributes in common with humanity, such as intelligence, emotions, sentience etc., you know well that if the animal kingdom united together they would not be going to the moon, like mankind did. Mankind far surpasses any other kind of animal. There is simply no comparison, so why attempt to frustrate my point at any cost? You complain that we don't engage with you with respect, but why do you make points that you ought to know are worthy of ridicule? Can anyone possibly equate a dog to a human being?
Logically, God is a sentient being, yes, since man is a sentient being...takes one to create one. A fairly rational belief. And the meaning of deity, if you study theology, is to be worshipped or worthy of worship. No, God does not need our worship, but desires it and created us for that purpose. It's not for our needs. As far as evidence goes, spirituality was never meant to be subjected to hard rock empiricism. It's a complex interaction of your heart, mind and soul, not just your mind or logic.
I don't expect you to agree with me, I'm just trying to get you to appreciate the fact that a different worldview drives us than the one that drives you, and it is one based solidly on our view of God, just as yours is. Who is right? Well clearly each of us thinks he is right. You don't but if you believed in God th way we do, you'd see why we feel the way we do.
Hi Shenango,
I still don't understand what you're saying about appealing to God. An omnipresent God doesn't need to be called upon and it's illogical to think that you need to pray to draw His attention to your plight or that you need to tell Him what is in your heart so that He can choose to help you or not.
You must have a different understanding from mine of the word "sentient". You root word means "to feel" and can refer to physical feelings like pain or emotional feelings like happiness. We know that many animals have both physical and emotional feelings, so are "sentient". These feelings exist in us as part of our survival mechanisms. God doesn't need feelings in order to survive, so why would He experience human-like feelings? It's illogical to believe that He does.
You appear to be using "intelligence" as the measure of our worth, saying that man is worth more than other animals because we have greater intelligence. I've seen that you carry this view, condescendingly, into evaluating individual people. However, this is just one dimension of life. All living things have many, many attributes in greater or lesser degrees, but always in sufficient measure to survive into the next generation. Don't be so egotistical to imagine that God prizes that which mankind excels at over all other attributes. If He did, you'd expect, logically, that He would've provided us with even greater intelligence than we have. Why are there so many people in the world who are unable so solve simple problems? Why are even our best and brightest unable to solve the most difficult problems? The human race is not nearly as intelligent as it could be. How do you, as a Creationist, explain that?
You say that your worldview is based on your view of God. I would say that it is just the reverse. You have an exceedingly egotistical view of Mankind and you project that onto your view of God. I find it unimaginable that anyone would believe that this immense and complicated universe exists solely so that Muslims can prove their "piety" and will earn an eternity in a Paradise that is so incredible that it can't be adequately described.
Your biggest fear is that if you lost faith, your ego would collapse into nothingness. Therefore, you defend every aspect of your faith at any cost, even though you make points that you ought to know are worthy of ridicule.
Non-Believer,
An omnipresent God doesn't need to be called upon no, of course not, but that's part of our worship to Him. He wants to be called upon (Qur'an 40:60).
As far as terminology is concerned regarding mankind's special creation, I'm sorry that my verbage doesn't meet your technical requirements. Call it sentience, intelligence, agency...whatever you wish...I don't care. I think I've made my point clear enough that mankind reigns supreme above the rest of the animal kingdom inspite of whatever commonalities he shares with it.
As far as intelligence, God gave us enough to distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom, even the dumbest among us, and empower us to take stewardship of the earth (Qur'an 2:30) and find God. If our intelligence is limited, God had a wisdom in rendering it that way.
The whole universe exists for God, yes. Muslims believe that even inanimate creations things like trees and flowers testify to God's greatness. The variety and complexity of the universe don't change the scientific fact of the unity of its building blocks. After all, all the atoms of the elements of matter differ only by the number of protons.
Hi Shenango. I've done a quick scan of Surah 40 to see the context of verse 60. I have to say that generally speaking I find this Surah far less threatening than those which were revealed later on. In this Surah, Muhammad speaks of messengers in the plural and disbelief in Allah rather than disbelieve in Allah and his Messenger. This makes it very different.
The English word "worship" is very problematic. It isn't well defined, at all. You use the phrase "worship TO Him" when I would say "worship OF Him". You say "He wants...". I never say that God wants. The flow is in one direction only, from God to us. We have nothing to give to God; He already is everything.
Returning to 40:60, I do "call upon God", in the sense that I acknowledge that I am dependent on Him for all things and I need to remind myself of that. God doesn't need reminders. And I worship God in a very real and tangible way, but it is in praise not in supplication (like in 40:65)
This same Surah also contradicts your assertion of mankind's supremacy: 40:57 The creation of the heavens and earth is greater than the creation of mankind. How much clearer can it be that it not mankind that is supreme? Man's supremacy exists only in the minds of men. You seem to come around to this truth in your final paragraph!
Thank you, Shenango, for drawing my attention to this Surah. I've been asking since Day 1 to be pointed to some verses that have some sort of universal appeal. I will be spending more time reading this Surah.
Non-Believer,
I'm glad you appreciate the surah.
Regarding worship, well, of course God has no needs. We believe in God's aseity as well, that He's self-sustaining independent of all else. But just because we can't offer Him anything, it does not mean that He has not asked anything of us. For example, Q3:97 enjoins the Hajj on able-bodied Muslims. It goes on to say anyone "who disbelieves", and that means whoever wishes to ignore that responsibility towards God, that God is not in need of anything. The verse you're looking at now (Q40:60) says those who disdain the worship of Him will enter the Hellfire. The Qur'an goes even further, saying that's what precisely what we've been created for (Q51:56).
Worship takes many forms in Islam, "salat" is ritual prayer, "dua'" is supplication, and praise is called "zikr". All are mentioned as necessary in the Qur'an and Hadith.
Regarding 40:57, you have taken this verse out of context, and it doesn't intend what you suggested. The mufassirun (Qur'anic exegetes), including Al-Suyuti and Ibn Kathir, explain that this verse refers to the argumentation that the pagans of Mecca made to the Prophet (PBUH) disputing how God could be able to re-create them at the Resurrection on Judgement Day. God is saying that the creation of mankind is easier than creating something they already accept, the heavens and the earth. So should they think it so difficult then? That's why the previous verse talks about disputing the signs of God, and the following one says the blind and the enlightened are not equal. The blind being the disbelieving pagans. You can compare this verse with 46:33 for a like example.
I'm glad something about the Qur'an appeals to you. That's a good start. It's a very rational book and when you think about the arguments it makes deeply, they make a lot of sense and have a deep wisdom. They're very well thought out and quite sophisticated. That's what won over the initial believers in the Prophet's message.
The Qur'an and hadeeth both use the term "worship" (in Arabic) 'Ibaadah, in a very deep way. In essence, it refers to the fulfillment of the overall purpose(s) enjoined by God.
The Prophet-peace be upon him- remarks in the hadeeth literature that the intimate relationship, when done in a lawful way, is worship. He remarks that removing a harmful thing from the road is worship, and he remarks that even a smile to your brother is a charitable action, which counts as worship.
Hi Shenango. Please don't get too excited about my praise of Surah 40. What I'm appreciative of is that it presents the theological principles of Islam without resorting to polemics and without some serious issues that I have with some chapters. This makes it possible to discuss the content of the Surah without distractions such as phrases that I find blasphemous like "Obey Allah and His Messenger".
I agree that it is "rational" provided you accept certain premises. However, I don't accept many of the premises implied in this Surah, and, therefore, I don't accept many of the conclusions. In some verses I find that the premises are so perverse that the conclusion becomes an absurdity.
Nevertheless, because of the directness of this Surah, it forms a good basis for comparing what we believe. Whether or not it would be worthwhile for us to discuss these differences would depend on your willingness to be open to my views. I'm not interested in suffering arguments about why you're right and I'm wrong.
Non-Believer,
We've been moving to the conclusion of this thread for some time now. So I think it is appropriate to wind things down. In reply to your suggestion that I'd be willing to be open to your views, the answer is: no. I've achieved my goal (at least by the looks of it), and that was to get you to see that we (Muslims) 1) are not blindly irrational individuals, 2) have given deep, serious, critical thought to the worldview we hold, and 3) hold to it steadfastly out of conviction as you do to your own. In an nutshell, all I wanted you to see is that we've thought about the same issues that you have, but arrived at a different conclusion.
God guides whom He wills to His path, and those aren't guided there's no one who can force their guidance. Not that we shouldn't try, but we have to acknowledge that at the end of the day we won't succeed with everyone. The Qur'an says as much, "but most men known not". I'm content to live with you (and other secular humanists or atheists) as my neighbor and don't feel like I have to accept your worldview to do that. I accept you as you are. You, on the other hand, apparently do feel like we have to accept your worldview in order for you to accept us your neighbors. Hopefully you've seen by now that we aren't going to accept your worldview. Whether you can live with that or not is up to you.
I'm not as ambitious as you are. I'm simply here, as on WI, for love of the faith and service to God, to ensure that non-Muslims don't persist in ignorance or misunderstanding of Islam. If they still don't like it after I've corrected their misperceptions, that's the best I can do.
Shenango, that's a very peculiar take on my last post. I've just said how your "logic" leads to absurdity and you conclude that I now see that Muslims are not blindly irrational. Oh well.
No, I do not expect you to accept my worldview. I do, however, hope that you will reject those aspects of your worldview that are incompatible with a multicultural society. We all have to live together as neighbours and the way to accommodate our differences is not as practised by Muhammad, the overthrow of those who do not agree with us. Only when Muslims are able to separate the politics of Muhammad from their religion will the religion of Islam be tolerable in our diverse societies.
My issue with Islam is its politics and I'm surprised how political the Qur'an is. Do you really believe that Allah meddles in worldly politics, choosing some of his people over others in their petty disputes? Do you really believe that Allah occasionally sends an army of angels to support some of his people against others of his people? Do you really believe that military victories "prove" Allah's favour of one group over the other, especially knowing just how often the "righteous" have been defeated by the "wicked". Do you really believe that Allah rewards fighters who die in battle, but only if the fighter's cause is just and how can anyone ever be sure that their cause is truly just?
These are the types of problems that arise when religion crosses into politics. That is the problem. That is the aspect of your worldview that I'm challenging. These are problems that lead to endless conflicts between nations. That's not to say that there weren't endless conflicts before Islam, however can we not begin by rejecting political ideologies that promote such conflict?
And BTW, Shenango, your words are astonishingly arrogant: God guides whom He wills to His path, and those aren't guided there's no one who can force their guidance. Not that we shouldn't try, but we have to acknowledge that at the end of the day we won't succeed with everyone. The Qur'an says as much, "but most men known not".
Who are you to suggest that you are the one who is guided and I am not? Who are you to imply that I am among those being referred to in "but most men know not". It could be you who is misguided and it may be that Allah is guiding me to show you the path to Truth. Who's to say. That's the brilliant thing about your theology: Only Allah knows for sure. You should remember that.
Allah knows who is blinded by ignorance.
Post a Comment