( Note: the following is an edited version of my presentation and supplication at the United Peace Federation USA weekly session, on the theme of healing.)
The subject of healing is a topic that translates into different results, depending on the nature of the illness.
As a student of faith and the social sciences, I believe that the majority of the illnesses that we face are actually of the thinking type.
Therefore, our worldview must be correct and balanced, in order for healing to take place.
Prophet Muhammad as foundation for civilization revival
The Qur'an speaks of the necessity of correct & balanced worldview by pointing to Muhammad, the seal of the Prophets (peace be upon them), as a person who emerges amongst a people who had been unexposed to scriptural knowledge, yet that audience received, by Divine grace, those things.
That foundation- scripture and wisdom (Q 62:2-4) became the foundation for a new civilization to emerge, leading to countless benefits, such as the great translation projects initiated by the Muslims, which revived the various Greek, Persian and Indian scientific and philosophical works previously lost or neglected. Translated into Arabic (starting in the eight century ) , these works were subsequently the foundation for the European Renaissance.
The foundation for right thinking can be summarized as faith, justice, and charity.
Also of interest is the Arabic word Imaan, translated as faith, is related to security and certainty. Faith is the best ground to stand upon both physically and mentally.
The prayer of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is relevant for our theme.
"O God, show us truth as truth, and give us the ability to follow it, and show us vanity as vanity, and give us the ability to abstain therefrom."
28 comments:
Hi Waheed.
You describe yourself as a "student of faith" and you go on to say that "faith" along with justice and charity are the foundation for right thinking, but what do you mean by "faith"?
I could say that I am a "student of faith" and I, too, believe that "faith" is critical for right thinking, however, I would be talking about a very different idea of "faith".
I would assert that for something to be part of the foundation for something that is universal like "right thinking", it would have to be, itself, universal. Religious faith, whatever the religion, is relative to that religion, and is based on beliefs that are not universally held. Therefore, I cannot see a particular religious faith as being a foundation for a universally accepted "right thinking" worldview.
If you are truly a "student of faith" then I hope that you will rise to the challenge of examining faith from a non-religious perspective. I hope that you are able to see where religious and non-religious faith converge and then you will truly understand what it is that is the universal foundation that you are speaking of.
As a simple example, it is easy for me to ignore the Divine locution that begins the prayer you cite and simply pray "Show us truth as truth, and give us the ability to follow it, and show us vanity as vanity, and give us the ability to abstain therefrom."
The underlying faith is different: my faith is in Mankind and that Mankind is able to distinguish truth from vanity and has the will and ability to follow truth and to abstain from vanity. As a "student of faith", I can study how we hold onto this faith in the face of Man's shortcomings in answering it.
In spite of our vastly different religious views, I feel safe in asserting that you share this faith; such faith can be held universally.
This is but one example of faith that we share, and this is the sort of faith that is worthy of study by students of faith.
Hello NB
I hope this finds you well.
" I would assert that for something to be part of the foundation for something that is universal like "right thinking", it would have to be, itself, universal." (N-B)
Actually, in essence I agree with this. The biggest difference between us is that I view the Qur'an as containing those universal foundations for right thinking. It strongly speaks against racism, tribalism, oppression, economic exploitation, materialism, as well as a dangerous "spiritual" attitude that ends up making a person live unhappily in the name of religion.
Actually I am going to post later on a Friday prayer sermon that looks at priorities within revelation. It is somewhat related to this discussion.
Waheed, I hope you are well, too, and that your month of reflection brings you fresh clarity concerning the topics that we are discussing.
You assert that the Qur'an "strongly speaks against racism, tribalism, oppression, economic exploitation, materialism ...", but the Qur'an and the Sirah are filled with tribalism and oppression, exploitation and materialism. Many of the verses which I have cited and most of the stories which I have criticised are directly related to these failings of the first Muslims. How can such indecencies form a foundation for "right thinking"?
It is disheartening for me to see the intellectual confusion that comes from an indoctrination based on falsehoods.
NB, where is your proof bud? Where are the citations you claimed to have provided?
The first person to call the athan was Bilal, a black man and we hold him dear to our hearts. Our families and religious communities are supposed to come before any culture or tribe. We are literally REQUIRED to give charity and pushed and pushed to give more and more. As much as we can. How is that materialistic???
Hello ambruin and thank for posting in this blog. It is my hope when commenting here that there are Muslims who are reading what I post and thinking about what I say. I look forward to hearing more from you.
You are absolutely correct that I need to provide evidence to support my assertions. You have jumped into this conversation that I have been having with Waheed over the course of a number of years. I have cited this evidence in many of the perhaps hundreds of posts that I have made here and I hope that you will go back through this blog and read some of them. I will, when I get more time, summarise the main points of evidence for you.
My primary thesis is that Muslims do not treat non-Muslims in the same way that they treat Muslims. This is not based on skin colour so is not "racism" in an absolute sense. However, the bigotry of Islam that I see in our multicultural world is every bit as harmful to social order as racism-by-colour. It is through this lens that I am reading the Qur'an and Muhammad's biography. I am critical of how Muhammad speaks about non-Muslims and the actions he took against non-Muslims. I believe strongly that those who attempt to follow Muhammad's path and who are unable to criticise this man will both suffer and cause suffering in others for their beliefs. If you have not read Muhammad's biography, I urge you to do so.
In your few words, you have already presented a couple of examples of what I'm talking about.
First, you demand that I provide evidence to support my assertions, yet Waheed has made similar assertions also without citing his evidence. He asserts that the Qur'an strongly speaks about certain subjects, but does it? Please think carefully about how differently you think about me compared to how you think about Waheed and what the basis for that difference is.
Second, you specifically separated yourself from non-Muslims with the word "our": "Our families and religious communities ...". Are you unable to adopt a more universal view and say that "all" families, and both religious AND non-religious communities should put the common welfare before culture or tribe? In my first post in this thread I have attempted to show how it is possible for people from different cultures with vastly different religious beliefs to come together by recognising a universal foundation that includes all people.
Let's stick to this second point, which is relevant to the topic of this article. Meanwhile, I'll look for an earlier thread which is more connected to the points that you raise. Once found, I'll refer you to it here.
NB,
I asked you to provide proof because in Islam, proof is very important. I already have found proof of what the imam has said, and I trust him as an academic and religious leader in my community. His rhetoric has already been proven to me over and over to be trustworthy. If I asked him for proof, he would be under an obligation to provide it also.
On the authority of Ibn Abbas (R.A.) that the Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.) said:
“Were people to be given everything that they claimed, men would [unjustly] claim the wealth and lives of [other] people. But, the onus of proof is upon the claimant, and the taking of an oath is upon him who denies (the allegation).”
[A hasan hadeeth narrated by Al-Baihaqee (Sunan: 10/252) and others in this form, and part of it is in the two Saheehs.]
The onus of proof is on the claimant.
Islam gives every person rights. You, as the non Muslim, have rights. The right to practice your religion, the right to your property and your family, the right to work, the right to exist in peace, the right to not be oppressed.
These rights I, as a Muslim, have to allow you. I am not allowed to force you to convert or to force you to leave your home. etc.
I have further obligations to you than to just allow you to have your rights. I am obligated to stop oppression and injustice. I am obligated to treat you kindly and justly.
I think you have something very important confused here. I understand why, as even many Muslims get confused on this and often people look at our community and don't understand this.
Islam is perfect. The religion is perfect. Muslims are not perfect. We are humans and we mess up just like everyone else. There are certainly ways I treat non Muslims differently than Muslims. I am softer with them, sweeter, I open myself up to questions so they can feel comfortable with me. I try not to patronize them and I try not to do that thing where you say something and expect other people to know what you are talking about even though it's obvious they don't. Can't remember the word right now. Anyways.
Muslims are supposed to have the best character. The reason I first thought to convert to Islam is because I met Muslims and saw that their character was far superior to my own and that of anyone I knew. Their character, not their self concept. This does not mean every one of us is perfect or even nice. We are human and we all have our own personalities and upbringings.
(Sorry, it said it was too long so I had to separate my comment.)
Why do I say "our" to separate Muslims from non Muslims? How else are you going to know who and what I am talking about? If we could communicate in another way, some kind of telepathy with feelings instead of words, then perhaps I wouldn't need to use these kinds of descriptive words, but alas- we are not in a sci-fi novel. We are on a blog, where the only way to communicate is through the written word.
It is human nature to utilize groups like this, anyways. I say "our" in regards to myself and other women. I say "our" when talking about my fellows in my apartment complex. I say "our" when talking about myself in the context of fellow Americans.
You ask why I am not able to adopt a more universal view and say that "all" families, and both religious AND non-religious communities should put the common welfare before culture or tribe. Why do you want me to speak for everyone? Why do you want me to speak for everyone in a specific context of one group of people?
Your point: The Quran and seerah are full of tribalism, racism, etc.
My response: No they aren't. Where is your proof? We are not allowed to do that.
Your response: YOU SEPARATED YOURSELF AS A COMMUNITY FROM THE REST OF US!! YOU SHOULD BE SAYING NO ONE SHOULD DO THAT!!!
My response was appropriate to your accusation.
Also, it seems to me that you are intelligent enough of a human to not use ad hominems. An actual intellectual has no need to insult others. My friend, we should never think ourselves so much better or smarter than other people. If you want to show us we are wrong, prove to us that your way of existing is better than ours. Show us you have better character and morals than we do.
Well, ambruin, I thought I was courteous in my response to you, and I surely did not intend any sort of "ad hominem".
I have said that I would point you to threads where I have developed these arguments. If you are impatient to see what I have argued, then you are free to read my comments in other threads. I don't feel any obligation to drop everything in my life to satisfy your demand.
I have also suggested that you read Muhammad's biography for yourself. You haven't indicated that you have done so. It will be difficult for me to discuss the numerous incidents within the history that support my claims if you have not read the source material first.
You say that Islam is perfect but Muslims are not perfect. My point was about Muhammad, his writings (the Qur'an) and his actions (the Sirah). Was Muhammad perfect?
You say that non-Muslims have the right to practice their own religion, yet Muhammad desecrated the Kaaba, destroyed pagan idols, prevented the pagans from further pilgrimages to Mecca, and otherwise prevented pagans from practising their religion.
You say that non-Muslims have the right to property, yet Muhammad forced the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir off of their property and took their possessions. He destroyed the Banu Qurayza and the Banu al-Mustliq, killing their men, taking their women into slavery, and taking over their lands and property.
You say that Muslims are obligated to stop oppression and injustice and to treat others kindly and justly, yet Muhammad assaulted the people of Khaybar, taking possession of their land and allowing them to remain as sharecroppers paying 50% of their production. He tortured Kenana ibn al-Rabi to death in an attempt to find hidden treasures and he abducted Kenana's wife Safiyya bint Huyayy and immediately forced her into a marriage with him.
I could go on ... however, anyone who takes the time to read the Sirah can see for themselves just how full of "tribalism and oppression, exploitation and materialism" it is. (Don't misquote me, I never said "racism") It is also important to understand how relevant verses of the Qur'an tie into this history.
HOWEVER, all of this is off the topic of this thread.
My point was that there is universality within all of humanity which can form the basis for "right thinking" for ALL people, and it is this universal view that we need to seek. Muslims were not the first, not the last, to recognise the failings of the human race and to attempt to find a solution to our wicked ways. Christianity has been around for 2000 years and Islam for 1400 years, yet neither has succeeded in creating a "perfect" society. Shouldn't we be objective and examine why they have failed for so long?
A universal world view avoids the pitfalls of the "us vs. them" mentality of particular world views which claim to be perfect and complete. Without meaning to, ambruin, you have utterly proven my point.
Now, let me say this, ambruin... I have tried to be courteous and patient in my responses to you. If I don't see an effort on your part to do a little bit of homework and to research what I'm saying, I don't think I'll waste more time responding.
Hi N-B,
In one of your comments, you accuse me of suffering from "intellectual confusion" because I assert that the Qur'an speaks very strongly against racism, tribalism, oppression and the like. In your subsequent comments to Ambruin, you stick to these assertions, claiming that I don't provide proof.
Over the years, in videos and on this blog, I have shared repeatedly evidences for this. See Q 30:21, 49:13, 4:135, 60:8 (which we have discussed before), 16:90, 6:152 , and many others.These verses, along with other such as 4:1, are foundations for proper thinking.
In your comments above, you mention particular reports found in the literature, and in general I have responded-in detail- on those issues.
On another issue, I find it amazing that you automatically assume that Ambruin has no knowledge into the biography of the Prophet, upon whom be peace.
Anyways, insofar as the article is concerned, I hope I have shared enough evidence, by actual Quranic verses with chapter and verse citations, that Islam gives, via textual revelation, some of the needed foundations for what I (in following Shaikh Akram Nadwi's phraseology) call "proper thinking"
Also, do have a look at the latest post, which contains two lectures. The one that I think would be useful for you (NB) is the one on priorities within Revelation, but the other one you are likewise welcome to have a listen.
Hi Waheed, perhaps I was a little abrupt with ambruin, but I'm very busy these days and I hoped that she would take the time to read my posts in other threads before jumping to conclusions. You could help me out by assuring her that I HAVE cited my evidence in the past and you might even point her to a thread where you believe that you have responded to me effectively. Then, we could continue that part of the conversation in a more relevant place.
I have not assumed anything about ambruin's background. I have asked her about it so that I can better address her concerns. It would seem that she hasn't read many of my posts in other threads or she would know what evidence I have cited previously. Again, it would help me, since you seem to know her, if you would point her in the right direction so that I don't have to reproduce everything that I have posted previously.
Yes, you have cited some verses to support your claim that the Qur'an speaks strongly about these things, however, I can also cherry-pick verses out of context to show how the Qur'an speaks very strongly in the opposite direction. Context really matters.
For example, Q 60:8 was addressed to the Muhajirun just prior to the assault on Mecca. The Muhajirun, having seen the ruthlessness of Muhammad in the incidents that I listed in my previous post, were justifiably concerned that they would now be expected to treat their own family members in similar fashion. In this verse, Muhammad is reassuring them that family members and friends who did not actively persecute them could be treated kindly. Something else that this tells us is that, since only a very few were punished after the conquest, only a few Meccans participate in the persecution and that the stories of the persecution are greatly exaggerated. It also proves that your claim that Muhammad was "merciful and compassionate" following the conquest is simply not true. Since Allah FORBIDS you to take offenders as friends, there is no possibility at all that people like Abu Sufyan were guilty of any such offence.
By contrast, Qur'an 9:5 was addressed to the polytheists (the Banu Thaqif, I believe) warning them of a pending assault during which there would be no kindness or justice. The Banu Thaqif, having seen the brutality of the Muslims, chose to surrender, to destroy their own religion and to swear allegiance to Muhammad.
However, actions matter even more than words. It should be obvious to you that I have not been satisfied by your responses concerning these incidents. I really don't understand how you reconcile these events with a world view of justice and freedom from oppression. You can't pretend that they never happened because there are clear references to them in the Qur'an. Scholars, including you, repeatedly make references to the historical context when explaining the meaning of the Qur'an.
Yes, I stand by my "accusation" that you are "intellectually confused". Back on whyislam, you were accused of "intellectual dishonesty", however I think that is unfair. I simply think that you are unable to reconcile the polemics of the Qur'an and the violence with a world view of justice and freedom from oppression.
HI NB,
As always, your assertions are just all over the map, mostly consisting of projecting not only onto the Islamic religion, but upon myself and anyone else who happens to come along and dispute your conclusions. WE all have busy schedules, and if you feel that you have been able to prove that the Qur'an and Prophetic tradition teach tribalism, economic injustice and the like in other threads, you could have simply posted a link or a reference to a particular article or series of articles. After all, you are the one who consistently makes comments on this blog.
Your understanding of Q 60:8, for example, is a view that not even the most conservative or anti-Non Muslim voices among Muslim scholarship, asserts. If memory serves, I deliberately shared the commentary of Mufti Muhammad Shafi in his Ma'riful Qur'an, to disprove your view. In other words, you end up "understanding" the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad in the most violent and confrontational manner, in ways that Muslims themselves have never thought.
Similarly, regarding Q 9:5, that has already been addressed in this blog in the comment section of the article regarding the question of being allowed to pray on behalf of Non Muslims.
I am many things, but intellectually confused is not one of them. I am simply being honest with the texts. The Qur'an is a book which says to uphold justice, even if the other parties are your family members. IT SAYS not to allow hatred of a people swerve you to act unjust. It says that God has intentionally made people to have differences in cultures, languages and the like. That;s simply clear.
Moreover, on some of the reports in certain sources, I don't accept each and every single one, and generally I have shared why. Your reluctance to accept another viewpoint is stubbornness on your part, born out of the preconceived notions you already have on Islam and Muslims. It is possible that you are also playing devil's advocate, trying to provoke heavier responses.
Will reply to your other post in a bit.
It can be tedious to reproduce arguments that have already been posted elsewhere, so I will summarize thusly:
(1) THERE are exaggerations and outright incorrect information in reports, especially in war context that have taken place in the Prophet's time. That is what I learned from teachers. In fact, there is a maxim to that affect among Muslim scholars. THUS, THERE is NO way that we can accept reports of atrocities as being things ordered or condoned by the Prophet of God, whose mercy and compassion were well-known.
(2) In reading Ambruin's comments, there was nothing rude or argumentative in her posts at all, yet your reply to her was actually very rude. Rather than simply sticking to a reply to her query for evidence for your assertions, you focused on the word "our" that she used, and later said that if you "don't see any evidence of homework" on her part, you would not waste time in replying. That attitude is actually what people felt about you on WI, and eventually after numerous complaints about insults to the religion and people on there, you were unable to make comments there anymore. My point in reminding you about that is that YOU should do a little bit of introspection, at least on how to deal with others who disagree with you. In the past, you have been very insulting to me, even accusing me of crimes. However, in general I have not replied to them, as my nature is not confrontational. Indeed, this is a moment to remind you that YOU post on this blog, a Muslim's blog, under a fake screenname, it is YOU who attempt (for unknown reasons) to deconstruct Islam, feeling yourself an authority, at almost every turn.
(3) You may feel that Islam is this big evil monster that has no appeal in the modern world, and you are free to think that. However, at this time I will remind you that Islam is projected to be the world's largest religion by 2070. I have seen dates as early as 2050.So not everyone thinks like you. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/02/religion-muslims-christians-populations-pew-research/70769318/
Oh, my, Waheed, you are really heading for the bottom this time.
First, I don't know what YOU mean by tribalism, but what I mean by it is that people who identify as a tribe treat those outside of their tribe very differently from how they treat those within their tribe. How ironic it is that you and your fellow tribalist address me the way you do in this thread.
As for ambruin's comments, I don't think she ever intended to read the evidence that she demanded. Her initial question "Where are the citations you claimed to have provided?" answers itself. The citations I claimed to have provided are exactly where you would expect to find them ... in posts in this blog. Without ever reading what I have written, she berates me twice in the space of a couple of days, but when I provide an explanation, she falls silent. She writes "Show us (members of our tribe) you (not members of our tribe) have better character and morals than we do," but I don't have to.
I don't know who you are writing for when you claim "your assertions are just all over the map". Obviously, such a claim is meaningless unless you identify assertions which are incorrect AND you are able to say what IS correct. When I first approached you, it was with respect and with an expectation that there was much that I could learn from you. Any fool can sit there and contradict what I'm saying. If I am wrong, then tell me what is right. BUT, you haven't done that. It's well past time for you to show me that you actually do know more than I do.
I don't know what I've said about Q 60:8 that can be "disproved". I'm simply pointing out the context given by the sources that I've read. If you have a different context, then we can discuss Q 60:1-9 in that context and see in which context the verses make the most sense. I'm a reasonable person and I am willing to consider other points of view. Same regarding Q 9:1-16.
My primary source of information for context is the "Surah Info" provided on quran.com. This is a Muslim source and I presume it to be mainstream. From there, I read the "primary" history, compiled by Muslims decades after the events took place but still widely quoted today. If you have other sources, there's nothing stopping you from sharing them.
All of the incidents that I mentioned earlier in this thread seem well attested. You, yourself, made reference to the destruction of the Banu Mustaliq as context for an article. I even pointed out to you the offensive way that this atrocity was being taught to very young children. NOW you are going to deny that this atrocity took place or that it wasn't ordered by Muhammad? Or what?
The "logic" of the maxim that you cite is proof of the intellectual confusion that I am referring to. You are assuming the conclusion before seeing the evidence. Can you imagine our court system if a jury was told at the outset that a murderer could not have committed murder based on a character reference and that they should ignore any evidence that shows otherwise? I'm glad not to have suffered from such teaching.
You blithely assert that Muhammad's "mercy and compassion were well-known" without evidence. But even worse, you consider it impossible for a man to be merciful and compassionate on one occasion and utterly ruthless on another. What more proof do I need that Muhammad could be ruthless than the ruthlessness of the verses that I have cited? On the other side, what would it prove if he was merciful and compassionate on some occasions? Nothing at all! He was consumed by tribalism.
You have NEVER addressed my question as to how, if these stories were untrue, they came to be part of Islam and WHY they have been retold for all of these centuries. The obvious answer is that those Muslims didn't see anything wrong with these stories.
I have seldom, if ever, said anything about Islam or Muslims in the modern world. You are just jumping to conclusions. What could I say that wouldn't be a ridiculous generalisation of the views of well over a billion people? My focus has been almost entirely on one man, his life and times and his writing. It's a narrow subject with a small source base. It isn't difficult to become familiar with the material.
I've told you why I can't use my real name. (I suppose that is saying something about Muslims in the modern world).
Finally, did you actually read that usatoday article? You are truly confused if you think that it supports what you said about it. Furthermore, it would further reinforce my view of your tribalism if you think that that article speaks positively about Islam.
NB, have you read the Qur'an? Does this verse not tell us about people like you?
"O you who believe, do not take as intimates from other than yourselves, for they will not spare you ruin. They wish what distresses you. Indeed, the hatred has become apparent from their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater. We have certainly made clear for you the Verses, if you were to use reason."
N-B:
There's so much going on in this thread of comments, and I find your indignation really odd. After all, as stated before, YOU are extremely insulting over the years in your posts about Islam and the Prophet in particular, and sometimes YOU visit those insults upon me, and any Muslim who happens to join a discussion, on a personal level.
I am not going to comment on Amburin's post, except to say that if time and desire is present, she will share her thoughts. We all have lives, responsibilities, which limit our discussions in the comment section of a blog. I don't expect you, her, or anyone else to drop everything, just to reply. I will reply to your clear assertions in the following summary:
(1) Qur'an 60:9
Your assertion that this verse proves that the Prophet (upon whom be peace) was "ruthless" in his treatment of Non Muslims, prompting concerns that were addressed in this text. You have made a similar statement before, in a different thread, basically trying to use it to say that Muslims are actually commanded to be ruthless with Non Muslims. In reply to that, I had shared, among other things, the comments on this text from Ma'riful Qur'an. Why from that particular commentary? Because it emerges from a trend of Muslims that are not exactly ecumenical in their approach. That commentary shows that even among the most conservative of voices, the most Non Liberal of voices, this verse is read as saying that Muslims should be just and fair with Non Muslims, especially considering that they didn't do any harm to the Muslims.
We are focusing on this verse because- in reply to your statement that I should provide proof about proper thinking- I cited this, with the acknowledgment that we have discussed this text in the past in a different thread. There are other verses I cited as well above, which provide more gems for proper thinking.
....
(2) Historical analysis
As mentioned previously, there are reports which I don't take seriously, reports which are exaggerations or outright falsehoods, that have found their way into some of the sources. While it is true that sometimes my treatment of them (insofar as the Prophet is directly concerned) is from a theological premise, it is also based upon contemplation of other historical realities, and-more often than not- the views of scholars, both ancient and contemporary.
This happens in all fields, especially regarding things like conflict and social upheaval. If you have NETFLIX, there's a documentary series on something called the Salamander letters. Essentially, there was a document attributed to Joseph Smith, founder of the LDS Church, wherein he asserts some sort of Divine guidance from a Salamander. The documentary, in the form of episodes, looks at all the characters involved in this. To summarize, the church had reluctantly accepted this document as genuine. Scholars had examined it, had authenticated it according to their standards. As it turned out, it was a forgery, one which had fooled everyone. The series shows the life of the forger, the motivations behind the forgery. Unfortunately, it led to loss of life and a very violent situation in the 1980's.
I can cite more examples, but the point being is is that just because something appears in Tabari's collection of historical events, that doesn't make it automatically correct.
Indeed, in this blog, when discussion those things (mostly with you), I have cited why I think the way I do, not just because of theological assumptions (i.e. the character of the Prophet), but because of the views of scholars, of those who have examined these issues carefully. Safi Kaskas's article was, for example, very detailed, and in line with my own general understanding.
(3) Knowledge wars:
You made a statement about it being "time" that I show that I have more knowledge than you. To be honest, I found that statement to be very presumptuous, even a bit egotistical. I am not on your blog arguing about your faith. I don't even know your name! I am NOT obligated to those kind of challenges. I don't mind healthy discussion, even disagreements, but I am not interested in playing those sort of games.
Having a translation of Ibn Is-haq's biography of the Prophet is not enough to be able to say one has mastered all there is on the Prophet or the religion. While I can appreciate that there is some effort (I believe you when you say you have read it, or consult various websites), that is just insufficient. Ibn Is-haq is very heavily criticized regarding his Seerah work. As is Tabari.
To address your courtroom and jury analogy, I'll use this analogy. YOU know your parent ( I am reluctant to use such analogies but hopefully the point gets across). You know your father your entire life. You lived with him, learned from him, interacted with him everyday. Someone comes along, long after his death, a stranger, and says he committed murder. Not only that, but he did it in a brutal way, and add so many details. What you will do, if such a thing happens, is to think back, and perhaps even examine the "evidence". You will think to what you know of him as a person, and examine the claim. If dates don't match up, if claims don't match up, if the evidence is clearly ridiculous,and it is rejected by experts for various reasons, you will come to reject the murder claim as simply false. After that, your not going to seriously entertain the claim. You are going to move on with life, knowing the character of your father.
Hello Waheed. I had pretty much decided after my last post that it was pointless to post anything more here. It has been obvious to me for some time that there is little that I can learn from you. It has also become obvious that you have totally closed your mind to learning from me. I find this a little disheartening since I have been teaching in various roles throughout my adult life and I have never encountered anyone so unwilling to learn from me. Putting it simply, your "theological premise" prevents you from interacting effectively with someone who doesn't accept your premise, either as teacher and as student.
You say that I have been "extremely insulting about the Prophet", however this is simply not the case when viewed from a modern Western perspective. What I have said about Muhammad is that from reading his words it is obvious to me that he suffered seriously from mental illness. In our modern world, mental illness is understood to be a medical problem and there is no shame in being afflicted by such an illness. There is no insult in understanding a person's mental illness as the root cause of his anti-social behaviour. It is manifest that he suffered from delusions and from paranoia. There are also several narratives which describe Muhammad suffering psychogenic seizures. You simply need to recognize the signs. Muhammad had an uncle who did recognize the signs, but Muhammad didn't appreciate his uncle's efforts to help him. The worst part is how Muslims shamelessly vilify Muhammad's uncle who tried to do what was right for his nephew.
It isn't sufficient to simply say that there are reports which you don't take seriously. The one thing that we do know is that these reports have been retold to this day. We need to take THAT seriously. I never expected it to be so difficult to establish a common basis for discussing these stories. The stories are what they are. What matters to me is what Muslims take away from these stories. On whyislam, Muslims accused me of ignorance for not having read the histories. How that I've read the materials that these Muslims demanded that I should read, YOU accuse me of not having read enough. However, you don't provide an alternative revisionist history that you find acceptable. At every point, Muslim posters have had the opportunty to define the history as they see it and to say what they believe to be true about the history. It is pretty clear to me why Muslims don't do that.
YOU recommended Haykal's book to me. YOU should read what it says in there and stop accusing me of inventing my own narratives. What Haykal concludes about the massacre of the Banu Qurayzah is "However harsh the verdict which the arbitrator had reached in this regard, it was dictated by self-defense, as the arbitrator had become convinced that the presence or destruction of the Jews was a question of life and death for the Muslims as well." Those words were written in the mid 1930s and they are all the more chilling when read in that context.
All you provide is a premise, a premise that Muhammad would not commit atrocities. You post a commentary which invokes another premise, a premise that Muhammad would treat all situations in the same way and that what Muhammad said or did on one occasion had implications for a different situation involving different people and a different relationship. At the same time, when it is convenient for your argument, you argue the opposite and argue that a particular verse did NOT apply to all situations and was specific to the moment at hand. Specifically, you argue that Muhammad's commandment to be ruthless, found in more than one place in the Qur'an, was specific to those situations, but Muhammad's commandment to be just and fair was not specific to only that situation.
You misunderstood me when you thought I asked for "proof about proper thinking" from the Qur'an. What I was saying is that it is irrelevent what Muhammad might have said in his book when his actions are so contradictory to what you claim he said. Proving that he said those things in no way proves that he didn't commit those atrocities and I don't think people should worship the words of a man who said one thing but you know did the opposite. Furthermore, in order to preserve your narrative, you have to ignore the times when he did exactly what he said he was going to do.
You frequently refer to anonymous scholars to support your views, however, even if you did identify the sources that support your position, wouldn't I find that those are based on these same premises which you know I cannot accept?
Your analogy about the courtroom is bizarre, too bizarre, and I don't have the time nor interest to pick it apart.
And BTW, I am not "indignant". Now that I thoroughly understand their tactics, there is no way that a Muslim can provoke me to anger regardless of how outrageous their comments about me. I never intended to insult any of you, but if you want to avoid feeling insulted, you need to stop making foolish assertions. It isn't my fault if you see my responses to those as "insulting".
So, Waheed: Good bye and good luck. I may look into this blog from time to time in the hope of seeing that you have found some enlightenment. However, until that happens, I see no point in posting anything further.
Hello NB
You are free to make your own decisions on what to read and what to ignore. It is perhaps prudent to post a couple of reminders, for other readers as well as yourself, regarding certain matters alluded to in the comment thread of this particular article.
(A)Despite the occasional rude, insulting comments to me, and the continuing disrespectful words about the Prophet Muhammad, I have striven to be always polite and answer whatever concerns/questions you share.
(B)I have no idea what you do for a living, especially insofar as teaching. You have never, to my memory, shared that information. While we certainly interact on the blog, and read & digest what you write, I find it bizarre that you viewed me as a potential student of yours.
(C) Are you trying to- as a closing remark- make a dig at the Prophet? What does that prove? It just seems to be unneeded bitterness. Sometimes, it seems that you are upset that there are a significant number of human beings who see him as a messenger of God! That number is increasing! Nothing can be done about that! He was a messenger of God, he was not a figure to be worshiped, but his impact on the world is undeniable.
(D) I have, in other threads, addressed almost all of your queries/assertions regarding the Prophet, the battles, and reports that exist in the literature. You simply don't accept those explanations.
(E) I would suggest that you engage in a bit of self-reflection, especially in terms of dealing with others and their own worldview. The Qur'an teaches this, when it says to the Muslims that they are not to ridicule the idols of idolworshippers, because they may, in turn, express disdain for God while being in a state of ignorance (Q 6:108).
Take care!
As much as I am trying to restrain myself from further posts in this blog, there is one thing that you said, Waheed, that I think your readers should think carefully about.
You said: "I find it bizarre that you viewed me as a potential student of yours."
It is fundamental to human society that people learn from each other. It is incredible to me that anyone would ever enter into a discussion with someone with the prejudice that there is nothing that he could learn from the other person. The admission that after these years of discussions that you still don't believe that you could ever learn anything from me is what we should all find "bizarre".
I have learned a tremendous amount from these conversations. These conversations have forced me to scrupulously examine what it is that I believe and what the basis for those beliefs is. They have shown me the importance of evidence as the foundation for our understanding of our world.
Something that one of my earliest teachers taught me is that the best way to learn something is to try to teach it to someone else. You cannot teach something unless you first understand it yourself. It is from this perspective that I approached most of my posts in this blog. Simply formulating and organising my ideas in a way that could be communicated has had its own benefits. There would have been greater benefits if there would have been readers who were more constructive in their feedback, but I am satisfied with what I've gained as it is. I do not regret having undertaken this effort.
This has been an exercise in "self-reflection". Though I have learned a lot from it, there is still much to learn; there is an infinite amount to learn and the world is continually changing. You are correct that I have not figured out how to engage with close-minded people whose tribalism constrains them so totally that they cannot engage in rational discussions. However, I am an optimistic person and I hope that further "self-reflection" will lead me to some insights into this serious worldwide problem, a problem that is clearly not limited to only religious worldviews. I am not the first person to grapple with this challenge.
"Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who strays from His way, and He is most knowing of the guided ones." (Q 6:117)
N-B,
On a personal level, I am always open to learn. As humans, we can learn, and are actually hard-wired to learn, from everyone and everything we encounter.
What was bizarre to me, and perhaps that is too strong of a term, is that you spoke of a teacher-student sort of relationship. You post under a screen-name, and I have no idea of what you do for a living, so how could that sort of arrangement be a realistic one?
Indeed, whatever you may think of my views or even personality, I don't think it is reasonable for anyone in my position to take an anonymous, oftentimes insulting, individual who posts in the comment section, with no access to original materials beyond translations, and with no known academic credentials or backround in Islam, to teach me about Islam.
I am happy to entertain discussions and questions as much as time and interest allows, but the premise from which you stated earlier, that premise was what I found odd.
It is possible that you meant something else entirely, but you know if that's the case or not.
Waheed, when you write: "I don't think it is reasonable for anyone in my position to take an anonymous, oftentimes insulting, individual who posts in the comment section, with no access to original materials beyond translations, and with no known academic credentials or background in Islam, to teach me about Islam."
are you not simply confirming your prejudice and your disrespect, not to mention your arrogance? Just say: "How could anyone like ME ("in MY position") learn anything from anyone like YOU?"
If, instead, you would have thought "What can I learn from this person whose experiences and worldview are so different from mine?", these conversations would have gone a whole lot better. Perhaps you should "engage in a bit of self-reflection" and think about what you might have learned.
As I've said, I'm happy with what I've learned here.
N.B.
If you wish to view me as arrogant or disrespectful, that is your choice, however, from my perspective, you are simply projecting, reading into, my comments, what you wish to read into them.
Please read the comment again, you quoted it. It is very reasonable. Why should I (and it doesn't matter if I am an Imam or not) learn about Islam from you? I am not talking about some other field. Perhaps you do have a certain field that you teach. I have no idea, because you have NEVER, to my knowledge, shared that. You have never shared your name. You have only shared that you "spent hundreds of hours" studying, that you are Canadian, and that you reject the Islamic conception of God. In years past we all thought you were an atheist, however you denied that in one of your posts.
Under all those circumstances, it would be unreasonable to "learn about Islam" from you.
You can have opinions, questions, views, and those can be explored. They can be discussed, they can even be debated, but not in a teacher/student context!
Post a Comment