( Below you will find parts one and two of a presentation on the utility of the Quranic revelation. It covers issues ranging from the sciences, hermeneutics, literalism and allegory in religious discourse.)
For the most part, I agree with your comment that nothing is in the Quran without a reason. So I ask myself, what is Muhammad's purpose in telling these stories about Solomon? Since he is retelling a story, I have no expectation that the story is "true" in any literal sense, any more than I think the latest Marvel movie is a true story. It is interesting to compare Muhammad's version of the story with the Bible to see how he has adapted the story for his own purposes.
In the Bible, the Queen of Sheba comes to Solomon because she has heard about his fame. She and Solomon exchange gifts and she returns to her own country. Everything in the story shows the respect that the two have for each other; there are no threats or criticisms of each other.
By contrast, just look at the aggression in the Qur'an. Even the poor little bird is threatened [27:21]. In 27:24 we see Muhammad insulting the Queen for worshipping the sun, but what is wrong with being grateful for the sun, the source of energy for all of life on Earth?
In 27:34-35 we see that the Queen chooses to send a gift rather than engaging in warfare. Yet, Muhammad has the wise Prophet Solomon rejecting the gift and responding with the threat of warfare. She submits in response to the threat.
So why is Muhammad's story so different from the Bible story? Why is this story here?
Waheed, the more I think about this topic, the angrier I get ...
King Solomon is a legend of a wise and just ruler. Muhammad is using Solomon's name to project his own ideas of how a ruler should act. Remember that this Surah is from a time in Muhammad's career before he had any political or military power, and thus Solomon is part of the "metaphor" that you are referring to.
The Qur'anic story of the Queen of Sheba has no basis whatsoever in Judaism. You and I both know that the Jews do not proselytize and that the idea that the wise and just King Solomon would consider sending an army against Sheba on account of their disbelief is simply preposterous. You say that there is no compulsion in religion, but we see plainly in the Quran that Muhammad sees no injustice in punishing another nation for "disbelief". Bringing this idea from the mouth of a just King of Israel is utterly repugnant.
These verses portend how Muhammad will rule once he achieves power. We can already see his tyrannical inclinations.
I find it shameful that you would teach such a lesson to American children. I hope that parents of those children read my comments and think about what their children are being taught.
I also have something to say about your approach to hermeneutics (a word I've never used before). Your approach appears to be that you have an idea and then you search in the Quran and other texts for a "sound bite" that somehow authenticates your idea. You pull the text out of context and attempt to apply it in a situation that is disconnected from its original meaning. It seems odd to me that I should be lecturing you on the proper way to read the Quran, so let me quote something that Maududi says in the tafsir for this very chapter: If a person does not want to believe in something stated in the Qur'an, he should frankly say that he does not believe in it. But it would be moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty if one should force the clear words of the Qur'an to give the meaning that he wants them to give, and tell the world that he believes in what the Qur'an says, whereas he does not, in fact, believe in it but believes in his own distorted meaning.
I did not going looking for this argument. I was simply curious to know what sort of communications took place between Solomon and the ants and birds. I was also curious to see if there was anything in the Surah to corroborate your "metaphor" concerning the ants and the birds... I found none. There is nothing to suggest that the birds represent "elites"; rather they may represent messengers. The birds in this story are not elites and do not have any political influence.
You live in America and enjoy our democratic institutions. You should not obsess about authoritarian systems, very common throughout history, but try to understand our democratic systems which seek to distribute power and create an environment for social justice. Our systems are not perfect, but you will not find solutions to our problems by imitating a tyrant.
I am extremely busy these days, and simply do not have the time or energy for arguments and fruitless discussions. My time is valuable, however I will for a moment address some of your odd assertions in the comments you have shared above.
" You say that there is no compulsion in religion, but we see plainly in the Quran that Muhammad sees no injustice in punishing another nation for "disbelief". Bringing this idea from the mouth of a just King of Israel is utterly repugnant. " (NonBeliever's post)
As mentioned in prior discussions, "Shirk" has a far wider implications than simply theological mistakes. It is connected to injustice at the deepest levels. For more on that, I would refer you to the articles here on the blog which have to do with Tauheed.
" These verses portend how Muhammad will rule once he achieves power. We can already see his tyrannical inclinations."
Muhammad -peace be upon him-issued a general amnesty upon his achievement of power over his Makkan enemies, an amnesty which even extended to those who killed his uncle.
" I find it shameful that you would teach such a lesson to American children. I hope that parents of those children read my comments and think about what their children are being taught"
This is a very strange statement on your part. Moreover, your statement stems from a place of assumption, that YOU are responsible for bringing those who listen to our talks to proper guidance, and that simply is not the case.
" I also have something to say about your approach to hermeneutics (a word I've never used before). Your approach appears to be that you have an idea and then you search in the Quran and other texts for a "sound bite" that somehow authenticates your idea. You pull the text out of context and attempt to apply it in a situation that is disconnected from its original meaning. It seems odd to me that I should be lecturing you on the proper way to read the Quran, so let me quote something that Maududi says in the tafsir for this very chapter: If a person does not want to believe in something stated in the Qur'an, he should frankly say that he does not believe in it. But it would be moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty if one should force the clear words of the Qur'an to give the meaning that he wants them to give, and tell the world that he believes in what the Qur'an says, whereas he does not, in fact, believe in it but believes in his own distorted meaning."
The presence of metaphor and religious allegory is well established by scholars of both ancient and contemporary times.
I don't approach the Qur'an in the way you have suggested. I am always looking for clarity and truth. I share what I believe to be true and inline with the text.
In terms of Solomon's understanding of the birds and ants, I acknowledge that my understanding was controversial. If you view the video again, I acknowledge that it could be wrong, but nonetheless that realization (of a metaphorical meaning) made me to exercise my mind.
"You live in America and enjoy our democratic institutions. You should not obsess about authoritarian systems, very common throughout history, but try to understand our democratic systems which seek to distribute power and create an environment for social justice. Our systems are not perfect, but you will not find solutions to our problems by imitating a tyrant."
Unless you have been omitting the truth, YOU don't live in America. In any case, your statement here is very odd. I have no idea where you created the odd assumptions found in the above quotation.
I am sharing the Qur'an, ways to look at the Qur'an. I am a Muslim who believes that Muhammad was a Prophet of God. You can call him a "tyrant" if you want, it does not affect us. Really, I have no idea what you are talking about, unless you are trying to say that being a Muslim is antithetical to being Western. If you are saying that, you are holding onto very odd thinking patterns.
You say: Your statement stems from a place of assumption, that YOU are responsible for bringing those who listen to our talks to proper guidance, and that simply is not the case.
I could say something similar. What is the "place of assumption" that leads you think that YOU are able to provide these people "proper guidance"?
I'm reminded of the assumptions made by Shenango when he wrote: 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".
Shenango also wrote: You don't have any special help from outside of yourself like Waheed and I have. All you have is your reason and brain power. We have all that too...but with the added boost of a helping hand of wisdom from above ("Say: 'God's guidance is the true guidance.'" Q2:120). I see guiding wisdom reflected in the respect and admiration I win from my non-Muslim colleagues at work when I explain to them my religious lifestyle and thoughts inspired by my faith and its teachings. They just think of me as very wise as they try to sort out their sordid lives on their own...but that wisdom that impresses them isn't coming from me. Our rationality isn't a perfect guide, otherwise there could have been no such thing as unintended consequences. Right action and outlook on life involves both use of reason and God's guidance. Neither alone is sufficient. You can go off an be your hard-rock empirical self, Non-Believer, but you'll never acquire any spiritual insights or gifts into life, and you're going to leave this life as clueless as when you came into it, staring into a vast unknown cosmos, because you'll remain blind to the fact that there's really any other way about things.
That's what the Qur'an means when it says that some people can see the light, while others are blind. We all have eyesight (well, except the truly blind), but not all of us have spiritual depth and vision. Your spiritual blindness is an example of what I find very wise about the Qur'an's words and why they ring true to me as the words of someone who knows me better than I know myself. That's how you know you've found the truth!
Is this also your "place of assumption"? Shenango says that it is: You don't have any special help from outside of yourself like Waheed and I have.
As for the other points, I'm not going to dwell on the fallacious arguments: There's a hidden or implied "jus ad bellum" against Sheba. Granting a few people amnesty excuses the murder of innocent people. Scriptures contain allegories, therefore it is permissible to find unsubstantial metaphors of your own.
My point about living in America (and Canada is also in America and is organized according to the same democratic principles) is that we are not governed by "a ruler" and we are not divided into "elites" and "common people". From a democratic perspective, the actions of the Solomon in these verses of the Quran are viewed as authoritarian and are not seen as a good example. If you were to remove the names from the story and present these verses as "Ruler 1" and "Ruler 2", most would decry the tyrannical actions of Ruler 1 and praise Ruler 2 for submitting to Ruler 1 rather than engaging in warfare which would have resulted in the destruction of Ruler 2's kingdom.
In some respects, this story is similar to the story you told about Solomon and the disputed baby. In that story, the woman who loved the child chose to give up the child rather than see it killed. So it was with the Queen of Sheba; she chose to give up her kingdom rather than see it destroyed.
As I have some free time, I am reviewing your comments across the blog, to find issues that haven't been addressed.
You comment: " I could say something similar. What is the "place of assumption" that leads you think that YOU are able to provide these people "proper guidance"?"
Giving lessons based on the Islamic teachings/texts is my passion and -frankly- my job. It is actually my overall profession. I can make mistakes, my understanding can change, but nonetheless I am sharing, with a willing audience, who has the choice to accept or reject whatever they hear.
* The account of Solomon understanding the language of birds and ants, and subsequent metaphorical overview (detailed in the videos), I find parallels even in the democratic societies of the West today. Governments who are beholden to big business, special interest groups, lobbyists, the "elites", whose freedoms are in stark contrast to the "ants", to the average citizen who can barely make it on minimum wage, ethnic and racial minorities, the homeless, the voiceless, but most importantly the lower class, with the lowest income. THESE are the ants, those creatures who are stepped upon, at best, by the elites.
7 comments:
Hi Waheed.
For the most part, I agree with your comment that nothing is in the Quran without a reason. So I ask myself, what is Muhammad's purpose in telling these stories about Solomon? Since he is retelling a story, I have no expectation that the story is "true" in any literal sense, any more than I think the latest Marvel movie is a true story. It is interesting to compare Muhammad's version of the story with the Bible to see how he has adapted the story for his own purposes.
In the Bible, the Queen of Sheba comes to Solomon because she has heard about his fame. She and Solomon exchange gifts and she returns to her own country. Everything in the story shows the respect that the two have for each other; there are no threats or criticisms of each other.
By contrast, just look at the aggression in the Qur'an. Even the poor little bird is threatened [27:21]. In 27:24 we see Muhammad insulting the Queen for worshipping the sun, but what is wrong with being grateful for the sun, the source of energy for all of life on Earth?
In 27:34-35 we see that the Queen chooses to send a gift rather than engaging in warfare. Yet, Muhammad has the wise Prophet Solomon rejecting the gift and responding with the threat of warfare. She submits in response to the threat.
So why is Muhammad's story so different from the Bible story? Why is this story here?
Waheed, the more I think about this topic, the angrier I get ...
King Solomon is a legend of a wise and just ruler. Muhammad is using Solomon's name to project his own ideas of how a ruler should act. Remember that this Surah is from a time in Muhammad's career before he had any political or military power, and thus Solomon is part of the "metaphor" that you are referring to.
The Qur'anic story of the Queen of Sheba has no basis whatsoever in Judaism. You and I both know that the Jews do not proselytize and that the idea that the wise and just King Solomon would consider sending an army against Sheba on account of their disbelief is simply preposterous. You say that there is no compulsion in religion, but we see plainly in the Quran that Muhammad sees no injustice in punishing another nation for "disbelief". Bringing this idea from the mouth of a just King of Israel is utterly repugnant.
These verses portend how Muhammad will rule once he achieves power. We can already see his tyrannical inclinations.
I find it shameful that you would teach such a lesson to American children. I hope that parents of those children read my comments and think about what their children are being taught.
I also have something to say about your approach to hermeneutics (a word I've never used before). Your approach appears to be that you have an idea and then you search in the Quran and other texts for a "sound bite" that somehow authenticates your idea. You pull the text out of context and attempt to apply it in a situation that is disconnected from its original meaning. It seems odd to me that I should be lecturing you on the proper way to read the Quran, so let me quote something that Maududi says in the tafsir for this very chapter: If a person does not want to believe in something stated in the Qur'an, he should frankly say that he does not believe in it. But it would be moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty if one should force the clear words of the Qur'an to give the meaning that he wants them to give, and tell the world that he believes in what the Qur'an says, whereas he does not, in fact, believe in it but believes in his own distorted meaning.
I did not going looking for this argument. I was simply curious to know what sort of communications took place between Solomon and the ants and birds. I was also curious to see if there was anything in the Surah to corroborate your "metaphor" concerning the ants and the birds... I found none. There is nothing to suggest that the birds represent "elites"; rather they may represent messengers. The birds in this story are not elites and do not have any political influence.
You live in America and enjoy our democratic institutions. You should not obsess about authoritarian systems, very common throughout history, but try to understand our democratic systems which seek to distribute power and create an environment for social justice. Our systems are not perfect, but you will not find solutions to our problems by imitating a tyrant.
Hello N-B,
I am extremely busy these days, and simply do not have the time or energy for arguments and fruitless discussions. My time is valuable, however I will for a moment address some of your odd assertions in the comments you have shared above.
" You say that there is no compulsion in religion, but we see plainly in the Quran that Muhammad sees no injustice in punishing another nation for "disbelief". Bringing this idea from the mouth of a just King of Israel is utterly repugnant. " (NonBeliever's post)
As mentioned in prior discussions, "Shirk" has a far wider implications than simply theological mistakes. It is connected to injustice at the deepest levels. For more on that, I would refer you to the articles here on the blog which have to do with Tauheed.
" These verses portend how Muhammad will rule once he achieves power. We can already see his tyrannical inclinations."
Muhammad -peace be upon him-issued a general amnesty upon his achievement of power over his Makkan enemies, an amnesty which even extended to those who killed his uncle.
" I find it shameful that you would teach such a lesson to American children. I hope that parents of those children read my comments and think about what their children are being taught"
This is a very strange statement on your part. Moreover, your statement stems from a place of assumption, that YOU are responsible for bringing those who listen to our talks to proper guidance, and that simply is not the case.
" I also have something to say about your approach to hermeneutics (a word I've never used before). Your approach appears to be that you have an idea and then you search in the Quran and other texts for a "sound bite" that somehow authenticates your idea. You pull the text out of context and attempt to apply it in a situation that is disconnected from its original meaning. It seems odd to me that I should be lecturing you on the proper way to read the Quran, so let me quote something that Maududi says in the tafsir for this very chapter: If a person does not want to believe in something stated in the Qur'an, he should frankly say that he does not believe in it. But it would be moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty if one should force the clear words of the Qur'an to give the meaning that he wants them to give, and tell the world that he believes in what the Qur'an says, whereas he does not, in fact, believe in it but believes in his own distorted meaning."
The presence of metaphor and religious allegory is well established by scholars of both ancient and contemporary times.
I don't approach the Qur'an in the way you have suggested. I am always looking for clarity and truth. I share what I believe to be true and inline with the text.
In terms of Solomon's understanding of the birds and ants, I acknowledge that my understanding was controversial. If you view the video again, I acknowledge that it could be wrong, but nonetheless that realization (of a metaphorical meaning) made me to exercise my mind.
Must go. Will post later Inshaa Allah.
"You live in America and enjoy our democratic institutions. You should not obsess about authoritarian systems, very common throughout history, but try to understand our democratic systems which seek to distribute power and create an environment for social justice. Our systems are not perfect, but you will not find solutions to our problems by imitating a tyrant."
Unless you have been omitting the truth, YOU don't live in America. In any case, your statement here is very odd. I have no idea where you created the odd assumptions found in the above quotation.
I am sharing the Qur'an, ways to look at the Qur'an. I am a Muslim who believes that Muhammad was a Prophet of God. You can call him a "tyrant" if you want, it does not affect us. Really, I have no idea what you are talking about, unless you are trying to say that being a Muslim is antithetical to being Western. If you are saying that, you are holding onto very odd thinking patterns.
Hello Waheed.
You say: Your statement stems from a place of assumption, that YOU are responsible for bringing those who listen to our talks to proper guidance, and that simply is not the case.
I could say something similar. What is the "place of assumption" that leads you think that YOU are able to provide these people "proper guidance"?
I'm reminded of the assumptions made by Shenango when he wrote: 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".
Shenango also wrote: You don't have any special help from outside of yourself like Waheed and I have. All you have is your reason and brain power. We have all that too...but with the added boost of a helping hand of wisdom from above ("Say: 'God's guidance is the true guidance.'" Q2:120). I see guiding wisdom reflected in the respect and admiration I win from my non-Muslim colleagues at work when I explain to them my religious lifestyle and thoughts inspired by my faith and its teachings. They just think of me as very wise as they try to sort out their sordid lives on their own...but that wisdom that impresses them isn't coming from me. Our rationality isn't a perfect guide, otherwise there could have been no such thing as unintended consequences. Right action and outlook on life involves both use of reason and God's guidance. Neither alone is sufficient. You can go off an be your hard-rock empirical self, Non-Believer, but you'll never acquire any spiritual insights or gifts into life, and you're going to leave this life as clueless as when you came into it, staring into a vast unknown cosmos, because you'll remain blind to the fact that there's really any other way about things.
That's what the Qur'an means when it says that some people can see the light, while others are blind. We all have eyesight (well, except the truly blind), but not all of us have spiritual depth and vision. Your spiritual blindness is an example of what I find very wise about the Qur'an's words and why they ring true to me as the words of someone who knows me better than I know myself. That's how you know you've found the truth!
Is this also your "place of assumption"? Shenango says that it is: You don't have any special help from outside of yourself like Waheed and I have.
As for the other points, I'm not going to dwell on the fallacious arguments:
There's a hidden or implied "jus ad bellum" against Sheba.
Granting a few people amnesty excuses the murder of innocent people.
Scriptures contain allegories, therefore it is permissible to find unsubstantial metaphors of your own.
My point about living in America (and Canada is also in America and is organized according to the same democratic principles) is that we are not governed by "a ruler" and we are not divided into "elites" and "common people". From a democratic perspective, the actions of the Solomon in these verses of the Quran are viewed as authoritarian and are not seen as a good example. If you were to remove the names from the story and present these verses as "Ruler 1" and "Ruler 2", most would decry the tyrannical actions of Ruler 1 and praise Ruler 2 for submitting to Ruler 1 rather than engaging in warfare which would have resulted in the destruction of Ruler 2's kingdom.
In some respects, this story is similar to the story you told about Solomon and the disputed baby. In that story, the woman who loved the child chose to give up the child rather than see it killed. So it was with the Queen of Sheba; she chose to give up her kingdom rather than see it destroyed.
Hello N-B,
As I have some free time, I am reviewing your comments across the blog, to find issues that haven't been addressed.
You comment: " I could say something similar. What is the "place of assumption" that leads you think that YOU are able to provide these people "proper guidance"?"
Giving lessons based on the Islamic teachings/texts is my passion and -frankly- my job. It is actually my overall profession. I can make mistakes, my understanding can change, but nonetheless I am sharing, with a willing audience, who has the choice to accept or reject whatever they hear.
* The account of Solomon understanding the language of birds and ants, and subsequent metaphorical overview (detailed in the videos), I find parallels even in the democratic societies of the West today. Governments who are beholden to big business, special interest groups, lobbyists, the "elites", whose freedoms are in stark contrast to the "ants", to the average citizen who can barely make it on minimum wage, ethnic and racial minorities, the homeless, the voiceless, but most importantly the lower class, with the lowest income. THESE are the ants, those creatures who are stepped upon, at best, by the elites.
Post a Comment