Note: The following videos are a recent recording of a discussion as to the identity and characteristics of the Kaafir as found in the Qur'an. In summary, it is our argument that the Qur'an, when critical of the Kuffar, is expressing criticism of the "Leaders of Kufr" (a-immat al kufr, Q 9:12). Folks who embody characteristics of ungratefulness, arrogance, and destruction. It is our contention further that the average Non Muslim is not referenced by that language.
Part one has the presentation, as well as some questions.
Q and A session.
Q and A session conclusion.
22 comments:
There seem to be a few keen listeners involved in this discussion. It's too bad that you do not post comments!
There are literally hundreds of verses which use a form of the word KFR. Few of them have implications of leadership or power, arrogance or narcissism, hypocrisy or destruction. I think that it is a stretch to suggest that the word has such implications outside of an explicit context where they do.
I think that the best "definition" of Kufr is found in Q 4:136: O you who have believed, believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book that He sent down upon His Messenger and the Scripture which He sent down before. And whoever disbelieves in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day has certainly gone far astray.
Based on this definition, it is clear that in today's world, Kufr is not a synonym for "non-Muslim". Most people are not sufficiently knowledgeable of what Islam says about Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day to say whether they believe in these things or not. Most non-Muslims neither believe in these things nor disbelieve in them; not all non-Muslims are "disbelievers". I would also say that many Muslims also lack the knowledge to say that they truly believe in these. Hence, the converse is also true: not all Muslims are "believers".
It is out of an examination of the evidence that I reject what Islam says about these things. It is through rejection that one becomes a Kufr. Hence, I identify as "Kufr" just as converts to Islam identify as "Muslim".
In the context of Medina during the time of the Prophet, Muhammad was so well known that there would have been few who didn't know what Muhammad was saying and would not have been unable to examine the evidence. The Qur'an was addressed to people face-to-face and whenever Muhammad used this word, he was speaking directly about those around him who rejected his claim of prophethood. Therefore, in the context of this time and place, "Kufr" was a synonym for "non-Muslim".
Something I think we can agree on is that those who follow a false prophet are on a destructive path towards spiritual, moral and intellectual ruin. You should agree, then, that the penalty for following a false prophet is great and that when there is doubt, you should not follow someone. Therefore, it is WRONG that a religion demands that people MUST follow their designated prophets.
BTW, "infidel" simply means "unfaithful" and is relative to the subject. When spoken from a Christian perspective, it refers to non-Christians. When spoken from an Islamic perspective, it refers to non-Muslims.
Hi N-B,
I have to disagree with your statement on some levels, the most important being that when examined in context, in a thorough and systematic fashion, we find Kufr associated with harm, narcissism, and the like, in a power dynamic context. THIS is demonstrated in Soorah 2, Soorah 8, 9 and many other places.
Also an BTW The word used for a person who does or commits kufr is "Kaafir".
The purpose of the post was to examine how "Kufr" is described in the Qur'an. How the term is used in subsequent cultural, legal and historical development, is largely inconsequential to this particular aspect (i.e. how it is described in the Qur'an).
You pointed out Q 4:136, and I believe that was also cited in the recordings. Even there, rejection of certain theological points also points to rejection of accountability, which is a trademark characteristic of narcissists, oppressors (such as the Zionists) and the like.
Hello Waheed.
One thing we seem to be agreeing on is that there is a connection between Q 4:136 and narcissism. However, I wonder if you truly understand the meaning of the word.
First of all, it refers to a classic myth of a man who falls in love with his own reflection. In this verse, we see the speaker speaking about himself next to Allah. In a very real sense, the verse is the "reflection" in the classic myth and the association with Allah is the love for that reflection. In the myth, the man is unable to separate himself from his love for his reflection.
Secondly, the word is used in describing a personality disorder. The Mayo Clinic describes it like this: Narcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.
Looking at this verse, what do we find?
"an inflated sense of their own importance" CHECK!
"a deep need for excessive attention and admiration" CHECK!
"troubled relationships" CHECK!
"a lack of empathy for others" CHECK!
"But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism." CHECKMATE!
For some reason, I don't think that this is what you meant. However, I really don't know what other way there is to see narcissism in this verse.
Hello NB,
In terms of your checklist, I will summarize, in connection to the passage under discussion in these comments Q 4:136, that the checklist and the general meaning of the verse actually go together, in the sense that rejection of the items mentioned in the text shows, ultimately, denial of accountability and therefore, a free hand to use and abuse at will. All of that goes in the checklist you have cited above!
I think you are trying to be a bit slick and apply it to the Prophet (or perhaps you meant it in a personal attack, I'm not sure), but assuming for the sake of argument you meant it for the Prophet (upon whom be peace). So, let's use the checklist you have shared.
(A) Inflated sense of importance
It was history, more so than the Prophet, which recognized his accomplishments and contributions to humanity. Yet, he describes himself as "the servant of God and his messenger". His clothes were humble, he did not live in riches, jewels etc. He essentially lived in poverty.
(B) Need for admiration/attention
The reports in the hadeeth literature are filled with examples of him going out and being unrecognized, of him wearing humble clothes, sleeping on straw mat, and so forth.
(C) Troubled relationships
Although an orphan early in life, he maintained a strong love for his uncle and others. After the death of his first wife, he would think of her fondly, defend her against a jealousy inspired attack on her by his other wife A'iishaa, and upon his own death, his wives grieved deeply. When the Qur'anic revelation (Q 33:28-29) gave his wives a choice for a strong financial settlement to leave, or to continue to live with him in his humble fashion, they chose to stay with him. He is also the one who encouraged keeping family relationships, even when religions differ. It is the Qur'an which also says (Q 64:14) only to be "cautious" of family which display enmity towards you.
(D) Lack of empathy for others.
The Prophet said "The one who sleeps full, while his neighbor is hungry, lacks faith". He also said "none of you have faith, until you love for your brother what you love for yourself.'
(E) Sensitive to criticism
Perhaps we are all like that in some sense, but that as a quality of narcissism to apply to the Prophet, this is incorrect. There's a famous report on how he gave advice on farming, which proved incorrect. His reply was "I am a human being. You know these matters better than me." In other words, he recognized his mistake, and was telling them to listen to him when it comes to religion, but take or leave what he says on a mundane matter.
On another occasion, he made a suggestion (I believe it was for the battle of Badr) on placement of troops, and was asked 'O Messenger of God, does this (suggestion) come via revelation or personal opinion?". The Prophet replied in the latter. The person then replies with a different suggestion, and the Prophet followed that man's suggestion.
Thanks for the checklist.
Going back through the article comments, I notice that you (NB) change your screen-name to "The Kaafir".
The fact that you, seemingly a very mature man, would, even for the sake of a conversation online, would create that as a screen-name, is very troubling. It is as if you are fashioning an identity based upon confrontation, when it's not even necessary.
Interesting that you should find this screen name "confrontational". "Confrontational" is exactly how I found the Qur'an and its use of this word when I first began reading the Qur'an. By my count, Chapter 2, where I began, contains "kafara" in 13 verses, "yakfuru" in 10 verses, "kufr" in 4 verses, and "kaafir" in 16 verses. That's a lot of "confrontation" to suffer through in just one chapter for someone who doesn't share Islam's religious beliefs.
Maybe now, you see my point.
I admit that I am deliberately being provocative and now I've succeeded in provoking you into saying what you really think. You wrote:
"In connection to the passage under discussion in these comments Q 4:136, that the checklist and the general meaning of the verse actually go together, in the sense that rejection of the items mentioned in the text shows, ultimately, denial of accountability and therefore, a free hand to use and abuse at will."
You, Waheed, presume that those of us who do not share your religious beliefs deny accountability and have a free hand to use and abuse at will. This is truly one of the most egregiously intolerant and bigoted statements I have ever encountered. It is truly shameful that anyone would think such a way and incredibly ignorant to shamelessly voice such a view to someone who is the target of your bigotry.
Yes, I DO REJECT those items. I see them as absurdities. It DISGUSTS me that you attribute to Allah such verses as: "Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses - We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise."
I do not believe in THAT god and anyone who does believe in THAT god does not believe in MY god.
You use hadith to defend Muhammad's reputation. I do not accept as authentic: accounts which are directly contradicted by Muhammad's own words in the Qur'an and I am sceptical of accounts which have no corroboration in the Qur'an.
And, no, I was not "trying to be a bit slick". I clearly identified the subject of my analysis with the sentence: "In this verse, we see the speaker speaking about himself next to Allah." If you or people around you think that you fit the Mayo Clinic's description of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, then I suggest you seek professional help. YOU, Waheed, are not the subject of my interest. You keep reading the word "you" as referring to you personally when the context implies otherwise. The English language is indeed ambiguous, but you need to be more intelligent in distinguishing to whom "you" refers.
Hello N-B.
It is interesting that somehow you think you have caught me in a "Ahaa" moment. I have stated how I understand this subject (the subject of Kufr) in the recordings, i.e. that it is much bigger than simply saying "Non-Muslim", a view which you initially seemed to understand, but now, taking one statement, you are running with it with an attempt to prove that I am a bigot!
A "completed" belief in God and his communications automatically shows a sense of accountability and responsibility, and rejection of that automatically equates rejecting a sense of being accountable for one's actions. This makes sense even according to the checklist you cited in one of your comments above.
Hell is an issue for another day, but in any case, whatever one's understanding of that concept, Hell is not meant as a vacation spot. It is not pleasant, and that is precisely what the Quranic text you cited shows.
You "don't accept as authentic accounts which are directly contradicted by Muhammad's own words in the Qur'an" and similarly are upset that I "use hadith to defend Muhammad's reputation".
The hadeeths cited in the comment are well known and established, and scholars of every trend within the Muslim community have produced elaborate, detailed commentaries on those texts, but what I am curious about is (1) In what way do you think those narrations cited above contradict the Qur'an? (2) The comment I made cited a number of Quranic verses, texts which clearly show that your assertions about the Prophet (upon whom be peace) are incorrect. So, what do you say to that?
Finally, if you want to self-identify as a "Kaafir", I won't stand in your way. Despite having an idea of its meaning (even if you reject the explanation given during the class), still wanting to present yourself in that way, with an intention to provoke, only serves to be self-defeating, not only in a conversation online, but in one's own life and mindset.
Waheed, you continue to confirm what I'm saying! It is no longer an "ahaa" moment when you continue to repeat the same thing! Frankly, it is not my problem to reconcile the contradiction between what you are now saying with what you proposed as an excuse for those words in the Qur'an.
Rejection of a false prophet does not automatically equate to anything of the sort that you allege. Islam certainly didn't invent the concept of "accountability for one's action". Many societies have found a way to build a just society without requiring a belief in a vengeful, tyrannical god. For you to reject the possibility that others can find their own way to accountability is the proof of your bigotry. It would be easier for me if I could accept your concept of a judgemental god, however, I'm simply not able to believe in such a thing. I am forced to follow a more difficult path.
---
I do not believe that Muhammad said "none of you have faith, until you love for your brother what you love for yourself." There's no reason not to think that this was attributed to Muhammad after his death and there is no way for your scholars to prove otherwise.
The Bible says, in Matthew 22:
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
[a] Deut. 6:5 [b] Lev. 19:18
Yet, where does this "second greatest commandment" appear in the Qur'an?
The Bible also says, in Matthew 5:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
[a] Lev. 19:18
There are so many, many verses where the Qur'an advocates hatred for Kafirun, Mushrikun and Munafiqun, it is inconceivable that Muhammad, "off the record" in hadith, ever said that his followers should love these people, not even your parents when they fall into one of these categories.
I am not "upset" by your use of hadiths. I simply believe that the early Muslims recognised the shortcomings of the Qur'an and understood the need to supplement what was there with additional texts. Many of these texts that are routinely cited, unlike Qur'anic texts, are directly traceable to non-Muslim sources. The language and tone and sentiment of these hadiths are in stark contrast to what we read in the Qur'an. An unbiased reader would naturally concluded that they had different authorship and would not assume them to pertain to Muhammad.
Hello N-B,
Thank you for your comment. It allows me to address your serious misinformation, but it also becomes a foundation to present, for other readers, very interesting tidbits of facts. I will summarize below:
Kufr
As explained before, there is the usage of "Kaafir" and related terms in the Qur'an, and then the term as found in law and history. We have been concerned as to how it is presented in the Qur'an. The Quranic text 4:136 gives identification of some of the rhetorical cover for oppression (in many forms), that such who hold on to that cover are far away from being guided. The items it names all has connections to knowing that accountability takes place, and that rejection of those items throws a people (in particular leadership ) into all manners of chaos. This point we can go back and forth, but you have stated some more interesting issues to address, which will be addressed below.
Hadeeth (None of you have faith until you love for your brother what you love for yourself)
You have stated that this goes against the Qur'an, and that Muslims simply created it in order to "supplement" the "shortcomings of the Qur'an". This hadeeth is reported in the two most respected collections, Al-Bukhari and Muslim. It is also found in other collections, narrated by different chains. Commentaries on it have been penned by numerous scholars throughout the ages. I actually own one such commentary in my personal library that was composed in the 1300's. Abu Dawud, one of the great compilers of hadeeth (d.889 C.E.) saw this hadeeth as one of only four hadeeths needed in order to practice and understand Islam!
Biblical citation
I am happy that you have cited the Biblical passage in your comment above, and you actually ask if there is a similar assertion to "Love your neighbor as yourself" in Islam, in particular the Qur'an. The passage is actually one of my favorite Bible passages. I have quoted it many times. I will answer your query in a moment, but for now, a word about the Matthew Gospel itself. It contains, according to John Shelby Spong, many elements which, although beautiful, he has argued, are actually examples of "artistic creation" and "Not a self-portrait or self-revelation". He goes on to say (using the sermon on the mount, found earlier in Matthew as the example) "So I conclude, with some confidence, that Jesus never preached this sermon, and that neither Matthew nor his original readers ever assumed that a literal interpretation was a possibility."
Source: BIBLICAL LITERALISM: A GENTILE HERESY PG. 123, 2016 EDITION)
These sort of statements do sound like things Jesus (peace be upon him) would say, but according to Spong, a leading Christian academic and theologian, he in fact did not say them. So it's interesting that you cite a "Christian Hadeeth" that is disputed among the experts in it, to refute a particular "Muslim hadeeth" which has never been disputed by the experts in that!
.....
Does this Hadeeth go against the Qur'an?
You (NB) claim that it does, and that it shows a different speaker than the speaker of the Qur'an. On the latter part, that is correct, because the Qur'an comes from God, whereas the hadeeth is the reported words of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, a human being.
Your argument that it goes against the Qur'an is because, according to your post, the Qur'an (which YOU feel is the words of Muhammad)uses the terms Munaafiqoon (hypocrites), Kaafiroon (" those who are rejecting") and "Mushrikoon" ("those who commit shirk"). By that argument, you would have to reject the very words of the Bible you cited in your earlier comment. The Bible uses such language as well. It uses terms such as "synagogue of Satan" "Children of Satan" "vipers" "snakes", "dogs" (yes, Jesus is said to have used that language).
So unfortunately, your argument falls flat on its face!
In your quote, you quote two passages from Matthew. The latter one is from Matthew 5, which John Shelby Spong says didn't even take place.
I am curious, on a side note, if you have ever read anything attributed to Buddha? I ask because there are books out there which compare the Buddha's sayings with that of Jesus in the N.T.. There are similarities, but would you think that someone just copied Buddha's statements and attributed them to Jesus, because the Buddha came before him?
HI N-B
I forgot to address your question further regarding the Biblical statement "Love the Lord...love your neighbor as yourself". You ask if there's a similar teaching in the Qur'an.
This is a good question, even if you meant it for an argumentative reason.
Actually this is all over the Qur'an.
Let's start with this one:
7. Thinks he that none sees him?
8. Have We not made for him a pair of eyes?
9. And a tongue and a pair of lips?
10. And shown him the two ways (good and evil)?
11. But he has made no effort to pass on the path that is steep.
12. And what will make you know the path that is steep?
13. (It is) Freeing a neck (slave, etc.)
14. Or giving food in a day of hunger (famine),
15. To an orphan near of kin.
16. Or to a Miskin (poor) afflicted with misery.
17. Then he became one of those who believed, and recommended one another to perseverance and patience, and (also) recommended one another to pity and compassion.
18. They are those on the Right Hand (the dwellers of Paradise),
(Al Balad, Soorah #90: 7-18, Muhsin Khan translation)
I used a Salafi inspired translation.
This shows the concern the Qur'an has for those marginalized in society, for our neighbors in difficulty.
Now, for an ever more clear text to answer your question:
HAST THOU ever considered [the kind of man] who gives the lie to all moral law?1
2
Behold, it is this [kind of man] that thrusts the orphan away,
3
and feels no urge2 to feed the needy.
4
Woe, then, unto those praying ones
5
whose hearts from their prayer are remote -3
6
those who want only to be seen and praised,
7
and, withal, deny all assistance [to their fellowmen]!4
(This is Soorah Al Maa'oon, Muhammad Asad translation, 107:1-7)
Here's Yusuf Ali translation:
Seest thou one who denies the Judgment (to come)? 6281
2
Then such is the (man) who repulses the orphan (with harshness)
3
And encourages not the feeding of the indigent. 6282
4
So woe to the worshippers
5
Who are neglectful of their Prayers 6283
6
Those who (want but) to be seen (of men) 6284
7
But refuse (to supply) (Even) neighborly needs.
________________________________________________________
So we have here Quranic references to answer your query. The word "Love" is admittedly not used in these references, however the practical application is what is given here. Offering prayers is seen as pointless when it does not translate into humanitarian work. Even a poor person can help another poor person. Our thinking is what is to be impacted by these teachings. Teachings of Jesus, of Muhammad, and the other prophets of God, upon whom be peace.
So the hadeeth originally cited certainly goes in line with the Qur'an.
The Prophet's cousin, 'Ali B.Abi Taalib, said that people are of two types, either your brother in faith or your brother in humanity.
That's an insight that goes along with the hadeeth of his leader, the seal of the Prophets and mercy to humanity, the blessed Prophet Muhammad.
Waheed, you say that my posts contain "serious misinformation" and I am always happy when someone corrects me when I am wrong. However, I can't find anywhere in your response an identification of anything that I've said that is incorrect.
As for Q 4:136, there is no "back and forth". Several posts back, you acknowledged that my reading of the verse is accurate. We are agreed that what the verse says is that anyone who disbelieves in the prophet Muhammad and his book and his notions of Allah and the Hereafter "has certainly gone far astray". That part we agree on.
What we don't agree on is that there is truth in the verse. It should be plain to you and your readers that there are plenty of people who disbelieve in Muhammad and his book and his theological notions but who have not "certainly gone far astray". There are also plenty of people who DO believe in Muhammad and his book and his theological notions who HAVE "certainly gone far astray".
In simple terms, the verse connects two things which are not directly connected. The Qur'an is clearly wrong, not just in this one verse but in many of the hundreds of verses related to Kufr. Muslim apologists can try to argue their way around this problem, but the underlying problem isn't going to go away.
I don't know why you are so resistant to the notion that outside influences have been incorporated into the Hadith collections. This is the strength of Islam and what has allowed Islam to survive into the modern day. It is no secret that the Persian Muslims built a library and scoured all known civilisations for their works of wisdom. The fact that many collectors and many commentators consider these hadiths to be so important shows how determined these scholars were to create the most solid foundation possible.
However, simple people do not respect the wisdom and authority of scholars and require "a higher authority" to govern them. What these people don't realise is that the supposed words of these "higher authorities" are fabrications and are used by powerful people to manipulate them.
I'll post some comments about the Bible later. You seem very confused about how a non-Christian. non-Muslim like me reads the Bible.
Before I address your comments about the Bible, I need to first go back to "None of you have faith until you love for your brother what you love for yourself".
The question isn't so much whether or not Muhammad said these words, but, rather, whether or not Muhammad ruled in Medina according to these words.
You have admitted in another thread that "Islam does not teach pacifism". So the problem is: how do you "love for your brother what you love for yourself" and, at the same time, justify attacks on your enemies. It is pretty obvious from the Sirah, that Muhammad did not love for the Jews nor for the pagans what he loved for himself. His fear of these people, his paranoia, shows that Muhammad himself did not have faith. It shows that he didn't believe the words himself when he said "O you who have believed, remember the favor of Allah upon you when armies came to [attack] you and We sent upon them a wind and armies [of angels] you did not see. And ever is Allah, of what you do, Seeing.". (Q 33:9)
The problem isn't that words like "Munaafiqoon", "Kaafiroon", and "Mushrikoon" appear in the Qur'an. It is what Muhammad said about them, and, more importantly, what Muhammad did not say, namely, to love them as brothers.
The early Christians approached these problems very differently. They were willing to suffer in prisons. Early Christian "martyrs" were those who died rather than fight, unlike early Muslim "martyrs" who died on the battlefield.
Christianity DOES teach pacifism. Christianity recognises that retaliation only escalates conflicts. (Matthew 5)
I have asked you before, and I ask you again: You say that Muslims are followers of Jesus. What specifically does Islam take from Christianity?
So, Waheed, you say some interesting things about the origin of the New Testament. You seem to be trying to case some sort of a shadow on the "authenticity" of the books. However, you seem to not understand at all how I read so-called "sacred" books. I see them all as words written by men, often anonymously, that have been preserved, not necessarily in their original form, often edited over a long period of time by many writers. I see the diversity of the writers as a positive factor and the editing as a continual process of polishing. The fact that the Bible is not the work of a single man is the primary factor that makes it such a superior book to the Qur'an. You cannot make the Qur'an better by challenging the sources of the Bible.
the Sermon on the Mount is a remarkable text. There is nothing like it in the Qur'an. Every person should read it and think about it. It makes no difference whether the words originally came from Jesus or from a Greek or from a passing Buddhist or whatever. The words speak for themselves. We don't have to believe everything that they say; but we should be able to discuss these words and the words of all "sacred books" honestly.
My point is simply that these words were well-known in the time of Muhammad, but Muhammad seems to be largely unaware of them or he didn't appreciate them. I don't know how Muslims explain their absence in the Qur'an. Jesus is mentioned many times in the Qur'an, but not in connection with what he taught. The Qur'an mentions his miracles and that the Jews weren't convinced by them and that the Jews didn't accept Jesus as a prophet. The Qur'an makes a huge issue that the Christians say that Jesus was "the son of God", but this only shows Muhammad's lack of understanding of the symbolism within the New Testament. You, yourself, Waheed recently said (and I found it astonishing that you would say it) that Jesus did not literally bring the Books of the Gospel to mankind but "embodied" the Gospel. Indeed, you have a deeper understanding of Christianity than Muhammad did!
Hello NB
Below is a gloss of replies to the issues you have raised
*False information
This is in references to your assertions claiming the Prophet as a narcissist.
*Hadeeth "None of you have faith until you love for your brother what you love for yourself"
You asserted that this hadeeth could not have come from the Prophet, because you think it goes against the Qur'an, and is a creation of "persians". When that was addressed, you changed the goalposts (look up who does that! ), essentially saying that even if the Prophet said it, did he actually do it, and then raise a totally different issue regarding Pacifism (as if that is the hallmark of morality and ethics).
Similarly, you raised the issue that the Qur'an uses words such as "hypocrites" , as evidence that the Prophet could not have said anything like this hadeeth! When I pointed out the Bible uses the same language, you go on to something else.
Anyways, to directly address the hadeeth issue, even through your bringing up other irrelevant issues, Jesus and Muhammad had different roles. The latter was a ruler, he was involved in affairs of state, dealing with different communities, whereas the former was not. Thus, their applications would be different.
I would say that although there is a level of pacifism in the New Testament, Christians have almost never practiced it. You can mention some early examples, but it certainly didn't define the community. In fact, I would go as far as to say that it has been the civilization dominated by (so-called_) Christians which have brought the most destruction and violence to the world, more than any other group.
The Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, practiced this, and taught his followers the same. I think you didn;t address one of the hadeeths I posted which says "The one who goes to bed full, while his neighbor is hungry, lacks faith". It is very similar to the hadeeth you have been discussing, but the hadeeth was used in Islamic jurisprudence as an evidence that feeding one;s neighbor is obligatory, the government would fine a household if their neighbors starved. This hadeeth became part of law! Indeed, in Muslim countries today, it still forms part of the cultural makeup. People are expected to have relations with neighbors, to have food for them and the like.
This is why I took strong exception to your characterization of the hadeeth, because I have seen its real application (not to mention knowing its place in hadeeth literature). It seems you have had actually no real-time interactions with Muslims at all, which is to your loss.
*Biblical text
You brought the NT into this discussion, by citing it along with the assertion that the hadeeth on loving for your brother was fake. When I point out that it is NT scholars (such as Spong) who are saying the texts you are citing are themselves false (in that they are not reflective of Jesus actually said, peace be on him), you say that is irrelevant. You continue to change the goal-posts.
I think you saw where I was going when I asked you about reading Buddhist maxims. These sort of expressions have commonalities, parallels, that reach across time and societies. It seems that for you, you can accept that Buddha said something similar to Jesus, and Jesus said something to Buddha, but find it impossible that Muhammad the Prophet would have said something similar!
If that is your stance, it is very illogical. One of the reasons that Islam spread and continues to spread is because Islamic teachings resonate with the healthy impulses of man, and a sense of familiarity from the past. Indeed, the Qur'an tells us that God tells the Prophet "Say: I am not one who brings a newly created (matter) among the messengers". It also says the Qur'an functions as "confirmation" of what came before.
What does Islam take from Jesus.
Rather than typing more, below are two links to panel discussion on this point. Unfortunately, the Q and A was not recorded, but I think enough of the discussion will help answer this query.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW-qOGsP6a8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5ngxd8z6DY
I have posted this for a few reasons (1) As an answer to your question. (2) To show love and fraternity between people of different religions. The Pastor in that panel is a dear friend, we have differing religious views, but that does not mean there has to be animosity. (3) Time considerations often prevent doing justice to a question.
Here's another video which answers your question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GEIJSBYUXw
The reason I have chosen these videos, as opposed to posting other Imams or speakers, is (1) It is easier to explain my own thoughts and understandings, as opposed to others. (2) A demonstration that there are issues which I have likewise explored, and have found that Islam has concrete information relevant to those issues.
Another item which you simply ignored is the Quranic references to the neighbor. The rhetoric of "Love" was not present in those texts, however the command to feed your neighbor, take care of your neighbor, was very much present, and necessary for Islamic development.
There are other verses (actually one of the blog posts was called "The attributes of civilization series" which explored some of them) which practically seeks to eliminate social vices as well as address the overarching problems of poverty, homelessness and the like.
Centering the mission of Christ in the Qur'an.
A two minute, more recent video, which we produced at the request of an organization.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUQpbsZPtBQ&t=27s
Wow, Waheed. We can all read what I wrote and see how you are twisting my words. Who does that? Who takes words that are there for all to read and tries to twist their meaning into something else? If you are brazen enough to do this in plain sight, I can only imagine what goes on behind our backs. Do you not believe that Allah sees all that you do?
As tempting as it is to spend time trying to correct all of the mistakes in your posts, I don't think it will be time well spent. I hope that your readers will take the time to think about what I have written. I pray that they are able to find their way through your smoke screens and "see truth as truth and falsehood as falsehood".
I would also encourage your readers to learn about the Christian concept of Love and Charity. If they can understand how different it is from what you are describing as "charity", they will have learned the most important lesson of Christianity.
Hello N-B
Nothing has been twisted. You have not even stated where and how I have twisted your words. If you have a different meaning than how it has been understood by others, that is a different story, but no twisting has taken place.
While I second your sentiment about learning and seeing truth as truth, falsehood as falsehood, the latter part of your last statement seems to assume that the readers of this blog have had no exposure to Christianity.
While I don't know each and every single reader, in general the readers of this blog will be educated people, fluent in English language, with deep religious and intellectual interests, i.e. people who have indeed already had exposure to Christian ideas. Indeed, many of our readers are those who have accepted Islam after having been deeply involved in the Christianity community and doctrines.
It may do you (NB) some good to re-read my comments above, and even take a look at the various links posted. While you may dislike the views shared therein, at least it will provide you with a perspective on the issues that you have asked about (mainly, in this case, what we do take from Jesus, upon whom be peace.)
I don't have anything more to add to this thread.
I set out to show that Muhammad used the words Kaafir/Kufr against anyone who didn't accept him as a prophet. Of the hundreds of verses which contain these words, a small number (1) narrow the scope of the attack to the "Leaders of Kufr" and that certainly is insufficient to alter our understanding of the context of the rest of these verses.
Waheed has himself admitted that it is a very offensive word to apply to a person, yet, he seems surprised that I should feel outraged at the way that Muhammad speaks about those of us who do not accept his claim.
Why is it necessary to have discussions and write articles on this subject if the Qur'an is so clear that it doesn't condemn disbelief like mine? Why make excuses for what the Qur'an says and twist the meaning of the Qur'an's words?
I cannot stop you from believing in a god who created not only this marvellous world but also created a Hereafter in which to torment people who have done nothing more than to say "Muhammad was not a prophet".
I cannot stop the tragic murders by Muslims of people they accuse of "blasphemy".
I don't seem able to lead even a single person to a better understanding of what is wrong with Muhammad's concept of Kufr, the real blasphemy.
Hi N.B.
* The understanding of Kufr as presented in the class is not simply cherry-picking. It stems from detailed and careful study of the Quranic text. We didn't look at all the texts, nonetheless I am confident at the general meanings as explained in the class.
* The Qur'an usage of Kufr is similar to other concepts, teachings which need to be examined in detail. It is necessary, in every field, both religious and secular or scientific, to do research, to have discussions and write books, articles, papers and the like. That effort is necessary to keep knowledge fresh, to develop deeper understandings, and this is what happens in all fields.
Post a Comment