Introduction
There are a number of statements of the Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam), as reported in the hadeeth literature, that speak on the dangers posed by corrupt leaders in the latter times (Akhir uz zamaan). While it is true that a number of them are clearly (when studied contextually) making reference to political or secular figures, there are others which illustrate that the religious scholars are the objects of discussion!
Thus, while the below may indeed have application to the secular figures, our primary focus is the religious leadership, which are usually self-appointed, delusional and prone to dangerous, harmful activities. Tradition ascribes the twin attributes of "misled, misleading" (Daal wa Mudill) to such folks.
With the advent of the internet, coupled with the emergence of affordable video streaming services, a brick-and-mortar headquarters are no longer necessary. With a little bit of technical savvy, background (which no longer need to be physical, it can all be done using technology) and charisma, a voice can obtain millions of views and followers, generate wealth, all the while delivering incorrect or useless information.
Below, we will look at some examples of this rather sorry spectacle, as well as relevant Islamic information that will deliver us proper guidance.
(1) The Unqualified Imam
The United States Muslim community has a situation unlike any other place in the world, wherein an actual mosque, properly built and situated, can have an Imam that is not even remotely qualified. To quote one African American Muslim activist, the only qualification such a person has is the ability to spell the word I-M-A-M!
This is understandable when taking a look at the American religious culture, deeply influenced by protestant Christianity, which largely approaches Christian scripture from an unregulated, opinion-based, "inspired" individualized readings, with no other considerations. A motivated person "feeling inspired by the Holy Ghost" can easily open up a space and begin preaching and getting followers. He (or she) does not need to be bothered with joining a particular denomination, nor have certification, training or even a grounding in the details of the faith. With enough articulation, a person can become very successful.
There are some caveats necessary to address. An Imam will always be questioned regarding their qualifications and abilities and be open to attacks by critics. A prime example is Shaykh Yasir Qadi, a graduate of Islamic University of Madinah, with both bachelor's and master's degrees, coupled with a doctorate in theology from Yale University, (currently working as head Imam in a large Texas mosque) is still dismissed as simply lacking simple qualifications by his opponents. In addition, even for those who seemingly have no grounding, there is much room to simply ignore those things if the person is deemed sincere, humble and worthy by those who support him.
By unqualified Imam, we mean the person who has taken the title for himself yet has no abilities to do the simple things such as leading prayers, funerals, yet deems himself able to implement religious changes, advocate destructive views, with no consideration for those who follow him.
The unqualified Imam is one who does not recognize his weaknesses nor seeks to rectify them. He is the one whose ego gets in the way of his growth as a professional as well as human being. If you find such a person and can't change that situation, simply move on to a better suited (for you) Imam.
(2) The Unmosqued Imam
Although the term unmosqued refers to a Muslim who doesn't feel comfortable in any masjid setting (usually because of personality, cultural or sectarian nuances), there is also the case of people who- in some cases- have never worked as an Imam or in any capacity within a mosque or Muslim community who attach the title (or a similar title such as "Shaykh" "Ustadh" etc) to themselves. Such persons feel motivated to deliver lectures from the comfort of their bedroom, in which their main thrust is to attack Muslim community leadership, personalities, and preach "an enlightened Islam" that bypasses tradition, scholarship, and even knowledge generally.
Such personalities often speak from frustrations, projecting wrong motivations onto others, and has a track record of emotionalism, trouble making and ambition. We advise caution when listening to a speaker who, as the proverb goes, is a rebel without a cause! It is worth noting that there is much intersection between the first two mentioned above, and to a certain extent #4!
(3) The young idealist
In the age of podcasts and livestreaming, voices can share as they see fit. The young idealist has love for his religious (and cultural) identity, he (or she) thinks that they have been able to understand all there is to the chosen subject matter, and (in search of views and sometimes income) and engages in debates with theological opponents- both within and outside of Islam.
I have been watching such livestream events lately, noticing the lack of wisdom and humility, and a plethora of ego, anger and arrogance in the presenters. The people of wisdom (wisdom usually coming with age) are often so busy with real-life problems in their communities, doing the necessary work, that they don't get around to acquiring the tools for livestreaming and the like. Thus, the unqualified, those lacking the ability to give appropriate guidance, end up with a dominant presence online. It is unfortunate that such idealists end up doing more harm than good. Thus, pay attention to the content, to the emotions, and even the age of the presenters of the message. Determine for yourself if the content is useful.
(4) "That guy (or group) on the internet"
On a global scale, this description applies to groups such as ISIS (Da'esh). Having emerged initially within a fragmented Iraq, they not only moved into Syria but eventually gained followers through the internet, appealing in Western and Non-Western languages via professional videos, magazines and other content.
Young people left the comfort of their families and homes to join the so-called caliphate, often resulting in long prison sentences and death, not to mention abuse and the crushing of their idealism upon discovering the reality of such groups.
While this has certainly died down, another aspect to this topic is the emergence of personalities who may possess adequate knowledge in certain fields of knowledge, conducting q & a sessions, with a professional delivery via being tech savvy.
One of the reasons that we have placed this concern about the influence of internet personalities is that even if the said character means well, it is important that answers/advice reflect the needs of the locality, and every society is unique.
This is why traditionally fatwas (legal opinions) had to be issued by local Muftis, and not outside scholars. Baghdad 800 years ago is very different from Muslim Spain during the same time period, even though they were part of the same Muslim civilization.
The wrong advice may destroy lives. There is less chance of that happening when taking guidance from those who can relate to your circumstances better.
What are the qualifications for Imam?
I have written on this in the past (Can be found here ), but in a Western context, it is necessary for the Imam to be conversant with the primary texts of Islam (Qur'an and Sunnah), local culture, religion(s), theological trends, regional needs, as well as an understanding of the social sciences, counseling, psychology, and similar fields.
The typical role of Imam is restricted to ritual, leading the prayers etc. For that, the qualifications are that he has a respectable amount of Qur'an memorized, able to navigate the Sunnah, and have moral character/piety. In a Western context, all of this will have to occur.
Increasingly the average Muslims are educated enough in religion to be able to recognize substance as opposed to religious rhetoric, so it becomes necessary for the Imam to continue growing in knowledge and understanding. Knowledge of Arabic language is a necessity for the sake of credibility in today's world, at least enough to be able to navigate the texts and traditions. Imams with impeccable credentials and mastery of the language and texts are still subjected to criticism and questioning, that's simply a part of being in that role. They won't be able to make everyone happy. There will always be ripples of discontent. If a person can deal with that, be merciful and understanding with those he encounters, then he is able to do a good job, be a benefit to the wider community.
40 comments:
Assalamualaikum. Very good read!
Masha'Allah - very good presentation on this timely subject.
Do Imams have a role in reforming Islam?
It will take more than fatwas by local Muftis to transform what might have been a perfect religion for a civilization 800 years ago into a religion that is perfect for today.
Being conversant with the primary texts of Islam will not prevent people from using these texts to justify the imitation of the sorts of atrocities that are described in these texts. What role do local leaders have in demanding that dangerous and inappropriate texts be removed entirely from the primary texts? Without 21st Century editions of the primary texts, Islam can never fulfill its promise.
@ Abu Laith:
Thank you Shaikh.
@ Anonymous (October 5th, 2023).
Thank you for your comment.
@ Anonymous (Oct.10th, 2023).
Thank you for your comments.
My argument is that Islam is perfect for today and everyday. It appears you are approaching the article from a certain paradigm, so it seems prudent to quote from your own post in order to address particular points.
" Being conversant with the primary texts of Islam will not prevent people from using these texts to justify the limitation of the sorts of atrocities that are described in these texts."
Can you give an example of "atrocities" described in Islamic texts? I have the feeling you are referencing Quranic texts regarding war, and if that is indeed the case, both the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad himself (upon whom be peace) have given clear rules of engagement(i.e. "Fight those who fight you" "Do not exceed limits" "If they (enemy) seeks peace, then you are to seek peace", etc..).
" What role do local leaders have in demanding that dangerous and inappropriate texts be removed entirely from the primary texts?"
If you can cite what texts you are talking about, it will be easier to address your statement. For the moment, I will say that in terms of the texts, there is (almost) always room for interpretation and contextualization, this process occurs in theology, law and philosophy every day on a global scale. However, if you are talking about "removing texts", that is something that cannot and should not be done. This is not only from the perspective of faith (in the sense that the Qur'an is from God), but also in historical and intellectual honesty.
" Without 21st Century editions of the primary texts, Islam can never fulfill its promise."
If you mean in terms of interpretations, this is a process that has occured since the emergence of the Quranic message and the Messenger (PBUH) in this world. That is not the same as "changing" texts to suit our whims.
" Do Imams have a role in reforming Islam?"
Although admittedly the term "reformation" gives pause to most of us, I think I know what you mean. In any case, historically there have been great minds which have given thoughts and understandings of texts, not to mention the schools of jurisprudence (which exists in every legal system), so sure, Imams have a hand in all of this.
Please clarify some of your points, especially with the texts you have in mind.
I am referencing the stories told in the History of the Prophet. It is impossible to read a text like Al-Tabari and not notice the actions which would be considered violations of international law, today. There are accounts of captives being tortured and murdered, women and children being taken into slavery, women being abducted into marriages, communities compelled to give up their religion, and so on.
Are the events at the Battle of Khaybar irrelevant, today? If so then why do we hear chants invoking the name of this battle? What happened there?
https://archive.org/details/TabariVolume08/page/n139/mode/2up
Before you defend the action at Khaybar, imagine if the outcomes of these ancient battles had been different. Imagine that the the Muslims had been defeated at the Battle of Badr and Muhammad had been killed. What if Ali had been captured, tortured and killed and that Fatima had been abducted to Mecca to be the wife of a Meccan chief? Would you defend that action?
Secondly, the rules of engagement that you cite are ineffective once hostilities have begun. No conflict will be resolved with "Fight those who fight you" and "If they (enemy) seeks peace, then you are to seek peace" if neither side is willing to back down. With rules like that conflicts can only end with the annihilation or complete capitulation of one of the sides. It isn't surprising to note what happens in the conflicts described in the History of the Prophet nor is it surprising to hear the rhetoric of today's Islamic militants given what you say their rules of engagement are.
Other ideologies and religions have recognized the failure of this way of thinking and have different principles at their base. They seek to de-escalate conflicts.
Anyway, thank you for responding to me.
Dear "anonymous" (10/10/23)
Thank you for your reply. Below are some items I hope you will take into consideration.
* Tabari's history (much like other works of its kind from other societies) has much content that is disputed by later scholars, including on the details of Khaybar.
*More importantly, Tabari's work are NOT considered sacred, nor as scripture.
* Rather than recreating the wheel, in the comment section of the following link, the majority of your above thoughts are addressed, in reply to a different individual.
https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2018/05/does-islam-sanction-slavery.html
* In terms of conflict resolution, you seem (in your last comment) to imply that Islam is somehow "behind the times" when it comes to the de-escalation of conflicts. I think that sentiment is not sound, neither from a historical or a contemporary perspective. Indeed, especially in the realm of current events, of the last 80 or so years, it has been Muslims who have been the ones subjected to attacks of all kinds. The invasion of nations, the otherthrow of governments, the formenting of social chaos, usurping of resources, muslim lands have been the victims of that, and that is further compounded by propaganda warfare which depicts Muslims as barbarians, rapists and the like. False news and disinformation has all been too common.
* In terms of conflict resolution, I would like to share that the Prophet Muhammad himself, upon victory over his Makkan foes, accepted Makkah's surrender, and issued a general amnesty, even extending to those who had brutally killed his uncle (Hamza).
You seem to be missing the point. The authenticity of the stories is irrelevant. What matters is that the stories are used as an important backdrop to why there is a religion of Islam. They are not sacred. These stories could be revised according to the needs of the day. So why are these stories, complete with their atrocities, still being told this way now? Why has a story in which Muhammad is described as violating his own rules of engagement been passed down through the centuries?
Isn't the reason the story of Khaybar is being told to inspire Muslims to act as Muhammad acted, even though that included the torture and murder of Jews, the theft of their properties, the abduction of women for wives, and the requirement to pay rent for their own lands?
Isn't this the reason that Islamic militants are chanting “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews. The army of Mohammad is coming.”
Doesn't this story need to be removed entirely from Islamic teaching?
And back to my original question concerning your article about the role of Imams: Don't Imams have an obligation to speak out against wrongful teachings, however long the tradition?
Dear Anonymous:
In terms of historical reports (authentic or otherwise), we don't see that as the cause or reason "why there is a religion of Islam". Islam, in terms of sacred texts, is the Qur'an (the words of God) and the Sunnah (tradition of the Prophet).
In terms of what you say in the second paragraph, we (as in YOU and I, I recognize your writing style, N.B., welcome back) have discussed that before in the previously mentioned thread, I think it best simply to return to that old article, so as to stick to the main thrust of both the article and comments. In terms of the slogans, you are referring to (I haven't seen it being chanted, but I'll take your word for it), it would seem obvious that such a chant is meant to frighten their enemies, and in turn their enemies will say something similar in return.
The original question you have made regarding an obligation to "speak out against wrongful traditions, however long the tradition", as a principal I don't necessarily disagree with you.
I will also throw the same question back to you regarding the current situation in the Middle East, you will probably say yes but with caveats explaining things away. I will say that for all of us, especially those in public positions, everything must be carefully calibrated. Governments, even bad ones, end up weighing costs and benefits to their own actions, especially if it may involve happenings in a different society.
Generally, the above paragraph can be read as focusing on political leadership, but what about Imams or religious teachers/figures? Such people must care for their communities, look at the big picture and engage in balanced actions. In short, we all make decisions we think appropriate, and have our judgements on right/wrong & authentic/spurious.
I would like to think that this blog engages "wrongful teachings, however long the tradition". Yet. some people think that that entails rejecting Islam or having no love for the Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace. Thus, some want us to reject Islam in order for them to be happy with us.
To such a sentiment, we reply that we are firm on adherence to Islam, to its values and worldview, even if it sometimes contradicts popular assumptions.
I wasn't expecting you to fail to recognize me, Waheed.
I came to see what, if anything, you were telling your readers. I am genuinely concerned about the impact that the actions taken by some Palestinians in the Middle East will have on Palestinians living in the West and, since we non-Muslims don't make clear distinctions, the impact on all Muslims living in the West. It is both inevitable and regrettable that people in your community are going to suffer as a result. What do you, an Imam, a leader, have to say to them? I am sincerely interested. Palestinians will be the victims.
Will you parrot the blame that the terrorists cast on "the Zionists" or will you admit that hatred is the root cause of this sort of violence? Are you able to admit that the hatred of "the Zionists" predates the establishment of the State of Israel and that you cannot reduce the violence to being an inevitable response to "oppression".
The Khaybar story teaches lessons; that is why we pass down stories from generation to generation. The story is obviously relevant to the situation. Why do you refuse to engage with me on this question? You are a teacher and you aren't able to tell me what lessons you think this story teaches? I can't imagine that if I asked a Christian minister or a rabbi about a bible story that they would deflect the way you do.
I don't expect you to reject Islam; I do expect you either to be able to justify the teaching of this story or to agree with me that this story should not be taught. How can you not have a position? I try to understand your position, but rather than stating a position, you merely deflect. Should I assume that you know that your position is totally unpalatable to non-Muslims?
Or can it be true that you are so naive that you do not understand what the story signifies? That would be hard to believe, but if it were true, I'd think that you would want to find out. Don't we need to understand the big picture?
I hope that there are readers of this post who are curious enough to want to know what I'm talking about.
Dear N-B
You wrote: " I wasn't expecting you to fail to recognize me, Waheed.
I came to see what, if anything, you were telling your readers. I am genuinely concerned about the impact that the actions taken by some Palestinians in the Middle East will have on Palestinians living in the West and, since we non-Muslims don't make clear distinctions, the impact on all Muslims living in the West."
Everyone has a writing style, so it was easy to see it was you. I don't know why you chose to post under an anonymous name, when even your other name is likewise anonymous (NB). Be that as it may, if you are genuinely concerned about Palestinians, perhaps you can join the millions of people all over the world, including in Canada, who are protesting, reaching out to their local governments, attempting to prevent ethnic cleansing.
You also wrote " What do you, an Imam, a leader, have to say to them? I am sincerely interested. Palestinians will be the victims."
I give advice as best as I can.
" Will you parrot the blame that the terrorists cast on "the Zionists" or will you admit that hatred is the root cause of this sort of violence? Are you able to admit that the hatred of "the Zionists" predates the establishment of the State of Israel and that you cannot reduce the violence to being an inevitable response to "oppression"
Just as when it appears you are going to be reasonable, you come at me with this. You obviously don't believe Palestinians suffer oppression (despite clear evidence we are seeing on a regular basis and even the testimony of Palestinian readers of this very blog), so why should I bother to show you otherwise?
With regards to your latter question, I am a little bit surprised at it, because there is a historical consensus that Jews had it good in Muslim lands, they would flee and eventually prosper in Muslim lands, and it was only very recently that any conflict existed, and even then, there are many significant distinctions (mainly a difference between Zionists and Non-Zionists, and that it is more of a political dispute rather than religious conflict). Therefore, your assumption is woefully incorrect.
" The Khaybar story teaches lessons; that is why we pass down stories from generation to generation. The story is obviously relevant to the situation. Why do you refuse to engage with me on this question? You are a teacher and you aren't able to tell me what lessons you think this story teaches? I can't imagine that if I asked a Christian minister or a rabbi about a bible story that they would deflect the way you do."
Why do I refuse to engage you? You haven't posted here in atleast a year, and you come at me with such a question? Don't you realize that that sounds a little bit ridicolous? We have discussed issues such as Khaybar before, I simply don't see the need to keep at it with you on that. continued in next comment.
......
I even considered not replying at all, because what ends up happening is a largely unproductive cycle of argumentation.
You write: I don't expect you to reject Islam; I do expect you either to be able to justify the teaching of this story or to agree with me that this story should not be taught. How can you not have a position? I try to understand your position, but rather than stating a position, you merely deflect"
Again, see what I have posted previously in the other article thread. In terms of "a story that should not be taught", who says that I spend time at all teaching about the Khaybar report? I think somehow you are not understanding me, or you are simply sharing a soundbite.
I don't accept all of the reports out there, similarly, our teachers don't accept all of the reports out there. Reports are not sacred, and don't really inform too much insofar as religious guidance is concerned. Islamic religious guidance is upon the foundations of the Qur'an and Sunnah, not half of a story in Tabari's history.
" Or can it be true that you are so naive that you do not understand what the story signifies? That would be hard to believe, but if it were true, I'd think that you would want to find out. Don't we need to understand the big picture?"
You can view me as you see fit, I can't stop you, but the issue is that the account of Khaybar has no impact, none at all, on the political life of the Middle East for the last 75 years. However, the Balfour declaration of 1917 does. The notion that Arabs are "animals" does! The notion that Muslims somehow deserve oppression; those ideas do have an impact. Not simply in a book, but literally on the ground in today's world.
In our last round of discussions on this in one of the other threads, I mentioned the (alleged) conflict between Isaac and Ishmael (as reported in the Biblical scripture) as being cited by the supporters of Zionism as the reason behind the problems. Your reply was that you never came across that, and you rejected my assertion.
It is possible that you indeed never saw that (ironically, just this morning I was sent an article written by a Pro-Israel writer with that premise), but now that you have heard it (again), I could say that you were naïve.!
I do see the big picture, and perhaps you do as well, or it could be that we are looking at two different photos.!
In any case, the thrust of this particular article was largely (but not totally) irrelevant to the issues we have discussed. Rather than going back and forth on a topic which neither will convince the other, I would kindly suggest that we go back to looking at what THIS article says and discuss its content and leave the issues such as Khaybar in the other thread where we talked about it at length, or we simply agree to disagree and move on with life.
Waheed, I have been talking about this article. I asked what role an Imam has in reforming Islam. You have acknowledged that Islam is much more than a theology and also encompasses important political questions like "rules of engagement". In light of the atrocities committed historically and now recently, you have shown yourself unable to answer the most basic questions about these issues. Don't you think that an Imam has a role in providing moral clarity for Muslims and non-Muslims in the face of this enormity? Yet you evade these questions.
Familiarity with primary texts is no substitute for an understanding of the issues.
I am genuinely concerned about Palestinians which is why I say that the protests that you suggest that I join are misdirected. You quoted Muhammad: "If they (enemy) seeks peace, then you are to seek peace"... isn't it time that the Palestinians sought peace?
This is not the way to solve these problems: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp No, the Hamas Covenant 1988 doesn't reference Khaybar, though it could have; rather it chooses equally disturbing Islamic sources.
Palestinians should not support this terrorist organization and I certainly will not join the small number of Canadians who have. You talk of "ethnic cleansing" and, indeed, that is at the heart of the issue, quoting from the link: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" I believe this is a direct reference to the ethnic cleansing carried out by Muhammad, previously discussed with you.
You, an Imam, need to provide moral clarity for your congregation.
@ NB
I have answered your questions here as well as in the past, however I am simply not going to go back and forth with you.
Moreover, your appeal to "moral clarity" reeks of arrogance and simply playing with words. You share a citation from 1988 when Israeli politicians are actually doing an outright genocide today.
You also attempt to associate us with things we have nothing to do with. It's simply ridiculous. We both know you have no genuine interest in a real discussion, you simply want to argue.
There is no "back and forth" and there is no arguing, here. You are parroting misinformation and I'm trying to disabuse you of some of it. I cannot argue with you because you have no argument.
I dropped by to see if you were offering your readers anything concrete with which to navigate what is going to be a difficult time for them. I am disappointed to see a complete absence of helpful words. Maybe you feel that you and your congregation are far enough removed that it won't affect you. I can't imagine that there aren't people near you who are deeply impacted by what is happening.
You have associated yourself with things when you accuse people of "doing a genocide". If the Israelis are "doing a genocide", they haven't been very successful at it. There are millions of non-Jews living in Israel today, substantially more than there were when the State of Israel was founded. Likewise, the non-Jewish population of the occupied territories continues to increase.
The same cannot be said for the Middle East/North Africa region where significant populations of Jews that existed 100 years ago have all but vanished. You may be able to point to former times when Jews were tolerated in this region, but the "ethnic cleansing" in recent times has been nearly total. The same political entities that wiped out these centuries-old Jewish communities have sworn to do the same in Israel.
Stick to the facts, Waheed.
Come on, Waheed. Why aren't you able to answer me honestly?
Why are you able to say about ISIS: "Young people left the comfort of their families and homes to join the so-called caliphate, often resulting in long prison sentences and death, not to mention abuse and the crushing of their idealism upon discovering the reality of such groups" when the same can be said about Hamas?
Isn't it obvious to you that Hamas does not care about Palestinian lives; that Palestinian "liberation" is merely an excuse to wreak havoc in the Middle East?
Hamas knew that thousands of innocent Palestinians would die as a result of their massacre of Israelis, yet they committed this atrocity just the same. They knew what they were doing. Make no mistake about it.
Are there no Palestinians here who will dare to speak out against Hamas? This is what is destroying your credibility and respect in the West.
To the above comment, I am living in Jordon, and I can say that you have no idea what you saying. The only ones who have caused all the troubles of our area is the so-called state of Israel. Please get an education on our region before speaking.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wyOS1j8tap4
Can you really say these guys have morals?
@Anonymous Thank you for showing me that there are readers of these comments. I do not want to assume that Waheed speaks for you.
If I need an education, then please educate me.
Start by telling me why a Palestinian state was not established in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank in 1948.
Then, tell me why Israel does not have the right to pursue those who murdered unarmed civilians. The murderers should be left in place and allowed to repeat their atrocity? Please do not make a false equivalent of those who murder and those who seek to bring murderers to justice. I live in Canada where there is no death penalty, however, this catastrophe has caused me to rethink my views on the punishment for murder.
@ NB/ Anonymous:
I don't intend to make this another cycle of back and forth arguing. It seems clear that you have such a disdain for Islam and Muslims that you become blind to human realities.
The previous Jordanian anonymous reader, should he return to posting a comment, can engage your questions if he/she desires, but the only reply I will share is to remind you of what you probably are already aware of.
https://youtu.be/GyqnJWlwzPI
UN SEC. Gen. Antonio Guterres.
Thanks
I don't have disdain for all Muslims. I do, however, have disdain for those who find time to insult me in this comment section but have no interest in engaging in thoughtful discussion.
Antonio Guterres correctly says:
"I have condemned unequivocally the horrifying and unprecedented 7 October acts of terror by Hamas in Israel. Nothing can justify the deliberate killing, injuring and kidnapping of civilians"
I have disdain for Muslims and non-Muslims who are not able to condemn the acts of terror. "Disdain" is not nearly a strong enough word to describe my feelings towards these people.
The losses in Gaza are tragic, but we must put the blame where it belongs. It was Hamas who chose to start this battle. It was Hamas who chose Gaza to be the battlefield. It was Hamas who built bunkers for themselves and stockpiled fuel, water, food, and weapons in those bunkers so that they could carry out a protracted battle. It was Hamas who exposed the civilian population of Gaza to their conflict. It is Hamas and only Hamas who has the power to end the fight and restore calm and security for the Gazan people.
Hamas does not care about the people of Gaza.
I'm still looking to you as an "Imam", a leader, to offer guidance to your congregation. The antisemitic rhetoric coming from outspoken Muslim-Americans is horrifying and will only foment anti-Muslim sentiments. You must condemn the terror; you must demand that Hamas lay down their arms. There will never be peace unless the Palestinians seek peace. Q 8:61 works both ways!
@N-B
I have been engaging with you for years, despite the fact that we don't even know you on any deep level, and despite the fact that you have not only repeatedly insulted me over the years, but have insulted the Prophet Muhammad and any other Muslim who would happen to reply to your comments here.
I am not under any obligation to continue pointless arguments with people such as you. I don't think you have any moral authority to demand anything from me, especially in terms of trying to associate us with things we have nothing to do with (such as when, in times past, you were mad about some randon Muslim publishers making a book or something) and cycles of argument.
Frankly, I have better things to do than that. I won't waste time anymore on those sort of pointless engagements.
Has nothing to do with "moral authority", my friend.
Keep playing the victim and don't take responsibility for the causes of your victimhood. Muslim-Americans are sailing into a storm and they will blame the storm for their misfortune.
Islam is the problem that needs to be solved and I make no apology for attacking Muhammad's political ideology. There is much wrong with it but it is obviously pointless to rehash these issues here. I don't need to "associate" you with these things; it is what you have chosen and you are responsible for the consequences of your choices.
@ N.B.
Well, you are not a well- wisher of Islam or Muslim community, as demonstrated by your posts over time, and as such whatever storms Muslims face, we won't be looking for your support.
“If Allah should aid you, no one can overcome you; but if He should forsake you, who is there that can aid you after Him? And upon Allah let the believers rely.” ( Qur'an 3:160)
I'm muslim and NB is right, also I would add Imams such you are the problems for our nation and islam. You fabricate and tailor islam based on your need. Like when you force civil divorce over islam divorce? and your not obliged and entitle to do. + You re direct them to other rude "Arabic Teacher" who believes he is an imam. What a joke.
Dear NB: Islam is nice but muslims are not. They lie a lot.
They don't have time to help you, but they do help females and would kill for females.
@Waheed: You seem to be living in some sort of alternate reality. I don't believe that there is anything that I can say that will bring you back. Contrary to what you assert about me, I do indeed care about you and about the Muslim community. I genuinely hope that you find the help that you need.
@Anonymous: Thank you for your comment. I actually see your statement "Islam is nice but muslims are not" the other way around. Perhaps you should elaborate on this. There is a hadith which says that "every child is born with a true faith" (and then blames the parents for corrupting the child away from Islam; an example of a text that has no place in our society). I believe that children are born free of religion. Naturally, we are all different from each other, but fundamentally we are alike to begin with. Children need to be taught how to be good citizens. We are products of our education; Muslims are products of their Islamic education. If there are significant differences between communities of people, then the education systems should be examined.
As for "they lie a lot": I believe that people learn to lie at an early age. If it is true that adult Muslims lie a lot, then that is a failure of their education. I won't generalize based on my limited encounters with Muslims, however, I will say that I have been surprised by some Muslims who have been far less truthful with me than I would expect.
@ Anonymous:
Your post reveals your identity, so to avoid mix-up, I will henceforth reply to you by referring as "M".
Regarding civil divorce, a number of scholars have accepted the legitimacy of it, but in any case, (as I don't want to go into your personal situation in a public setting), I totally reject your accusation about fabricating and tailoring Islam to fit our needs, that assertion is a very serious claim. We didn't make up anything, and it seems you are attempting to assign blame to others.
Brother "M", my advice is to move on with your life, the life that Allah has given you.
@ N-B
You wrote " You seem to be living in some sort of alternate reality. I don't believe that there is anything that I can say that will bring you back. Contrary to what you assert about me, I do indeed care about you and about the Muslim community. I genuinely hope that you find the help that you need."
If this is true, you need to do a better job of showing it. While I have no ability to look inside your heart, I can however read your words, which you have posted in the comment section of this blog and other sites over the last few years.
Making personal insults, as well as insults regarding Islamic beliefs (here I am referencing mainly your disparaging remarks on the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him), is not the way to show care.
You also write: As for "they lie a lot": I believe that people learn to lie at an early age. If it is true that adult Muslims lie a lot, then that is a failure of their education. I won't generalize based on my limited encounters with Muslims, however, I will say that I have been surprised by some Muslims who have been far less truthful with me than I would expect."
As I don't know what specific examples you have in mind, it is difficult to comment. I can only say that Islam as a faith does not promote lying, but I think that you are saying this because of either misunderstandings on your part of what has been stated, or simple projection.
I don't need to dig back into old articles: there are specific examples of half-truths in your latest article "Interfaith fall forums 2024- The Open Forum". If I get time, I'll address them there.
I don't deny and I make no apology for my disparaging remarks on the prophet Muhammad. I believe that the Islamists who attempt to follow his violent example are proof that an alliance with Muhammad, instead of Allāh, is a curse upon the Muslim people. It is because of my caring for all people that I feel compelled to speak out against this ideology which is bringing suffering to its own followers in so many places in the world.
"And whoever takes Satan as an ally instead of Allāh has certainly sustained a clear loss."
I should say one thing more about "disparaging remarks" against others: Islam is founded on disparagement.
Muhammad's disparagement against the pagan religion in Mecca was so intense that the Meccans, even his own tribe, felt compelled to expel him from the city. Once he had the power, he eradicated the religion; "cleansing" the Kaaba and destroying the religious symbols throughout the region.
Once in Medina and after his claim of prophecy was rejected by the Jews there, he repeatedly disparaged the Jews, including making false claims about them worshipping one of their prophets. He used lies to foment hatred against the Jews and ultimately destroyed the Jewish populations in Medina.
The disparagement of the Christian belief in the Trinity continues to this day.
If I could show you my first question on whyislam, you would see that I asked about this disparagement. I was surprised by what I found when I started reading the Quran from the beginning and reached the second chapter. I couldn't understand where it was coming from. I was not expecting to find a religion founded on negativity like that. Only after I delved into the biography did I understand the hate that was behind it. This is not a solid foundation for a religion.
It seems that Muslims are very good at dishing out criticism of others but are intolerant of criticism of themselves.
@ N-B
You wrote " I don't deny and I make no apology for my disparaging remarks on the prophet Muhammad. I believe that the Islamists who attempt to follow his violent example are proof that an alliance with Muhammad, instead of Allāh, is a curse upon the Muslim people. It is because of my caring for all people that I feel compelled to speak out against this ideology which is bringing suffering to its own followers in so many places in the world."
I'm sorry, you really don't know what you are talking about here. In the past you have expressed admiration for Mahatma Ghandi, so let's see what he says about the Prophet Muhammad.
Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in “Young India”, 1924:
“I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind… I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.”
In any case, understand that religious differences need not lead to disrespect. We have already touched on that in the other thread. You continue to show disrespect, which is why people simply don't want to waste their time.
As for your latter comments, there were no false claims, you are perhaps simply unaware of the correct meaning of what you are talking about. One of the Quranic commentators has asserted that when the text condemns the worship of Ezra, it is talking about a proto-Jewish group that was present in those days (I suppose comparable to Hebrew Israelites, if you know them and their religious claims), you cite the Trinity, a doctrine which had been disputed (in terms of authenticity and levels of powers of the characters therein) throughout Christian history.
I'm not sure if you are now identifying as a Christian ( as in the past you seemed not to), but in any case, the Quranic criticism of the trinity doctrine is nothing new.
The last statement claims we are intolerant of criticism. I'll be fair and say I can understand why you would say that, however I disagree, on both a personal and religious level. On a personal level, I am actually very tolerant, and engage with people. This is something you yourself have acknowledged in times past. On a religious level, the Qur'an allows us to say "to you your way and to me my way", it allows us to simply say that religious disputes will be addressed by God on the day of judgement.
That, really, is all beside the point. In the Quran, Muhammad disparages every non-Muslim group that he had contact with. I can think of no reason why we should be prohibited from disparaging Muhammad and his book in return. If it bothers you, then it's because you have a double standard. Even more, I'm disparaging a single man who died centuries ago and the book that he left behind; people who follow Muhammad continue to disparage non-Muslim communities still today. You do so every time you recite a verse of the Quran which disparages a non-Muslim group.
No, I am not a Christian, however, the Gospel contains many ideas which are worthy of careful study.
- My belief in God precludes the existence of prophets and scriptures; anyone who claims to have a special relationship with God is either delusional or a liar. That is not to say that people cannot have moments of inspiration and we should be open to such moments.
- God has no need of human-like emotions; it is an absurdity to assert that any actions by humans "please" God or "anger" God or in any way trigger any sort of emotional reaction in God. God does not "hate".
- We have no choice but to submit to God's laws, just as a thrown rock has no choice but to fall to the ground.
I thought that I had clarified that before.
@ N-B
You wrote the following " That, really, is all beside the point. In the Quran, Muhammad disparages every non-Muslim group that he had contact with. I can think of no reason why we should be prohibited from disparaging Muhammad and his book in return. If it bothers you, then it's because you have a double standard. Even more, I'm disparaging a single man who died centuries ago and the book that he left behind; people who follow Muhammad continue to disparage non-Muslim communities still today. You do so every time you recite a verse of the Quran which disparages a non-Muslim group."
What a way to not address anything I said at all in the prior comment. All of your criticisms have been addressed, and rather than reply to them, you simply say "that's besides the point".
Your words above seem to be more than some theological disagreement. It borders on obsession. You seem to project assumptions onto other people.
You have said elsewhere you "love the muslim people" and yet you think that constant attacking of him is going to allow us to be recipients of that love?
If you don't believe Muhammad was a Messenger of God, that's your business. But it simply makes no sense that you go to Muslim platforms talking about him in the way you do, and yet somehow expect us to just sit there and say "Yes, master".
We are not slaves and don't appreciate this patronizing approach.
In your statements of belief, you say " My belief in God precludes the existence of prophets and scriptures; anyone who claims to have a special relationship with God is either delusional or a liar. " By that standard, you must then be critcal of Jesus. By that standard, you must be critical of Moses. Yet, so far you haven't attacked them....I wonder why?
You write: " God has no need of human-like emotions; it is an absurdity to assert that any actions by humans "please" God or "anger" God or in any way trigger any sort of emotional reaction in God. God does not "hate"."
I actually agree with you, believe it or not. The Qur'an does mention "anger" (also translated as "wrath" ) in connection to God, but its in connection to things in the physical world that generates Divine wrath, when we destroy the environment etc. Time limitations prevent me from citing the plethora of Quranic verses on this, I can post them at another time.
You write " We have no choice but to submit to God's laws, just as a thrown rock has no choice but to fall to the ground"
In essence, I agree with this too, and that is what Islam actually asserts. The major difference between the above assertion of yours and the Islamic teaching is that the Qur'an says that people have a choice to believe it or not. In addition, we say that God's laws are not only within the body of creation (natural laws) but also have been conveyed via scripture and human messengers.
" I thought that I had clarified that before"
Well, you have come across differently at various times. In the past you seemed atheist or agnostic, but at other times you have a voice more sympathetic to religion.
No, it has nothing to do with "some theological disagreement". I am simply pointing out that Muhammad disparages all "others" and you should not take offence if "others" disparage Muhammad. Your belief in Muhammad's special status should not blind you to the impact that his words can have.
If you were an honest person, you would admit that there are many, many verses in the Qur'an which deprecate "others" and that teaching that view of "others" leads to distrust, hatred, and sometimes violence. It is not hard to see that this was intentional on Muhammad's part. When read in the context of the time, generally, these verses were "revealed" when Muhammad was recruiting an army for one of his campaigns. This is the legacy that you cling to.
The Sirah and many hadiths testify to the hatred and violence that Muhammad's words lead to in his own time.
Furthermore, the Qur'an has many verses asserting the superiority of Muslims over "others" which, in today's context, only serves to create division.
You keep dodging the issue.
@ N-B
We have discussed at length some of the texts you feel is insulting or antisemtic etc ( I have in mind the article on Ribaa or usury), what I am arguing is that there is context, either there in the Quranic content, or in the historical reports, which specifies who and what is being addressed.
Let's get back to the point, you cannot in all honesty assert that you "love Muslim people" and yet constantly go to Muslim platforms to attack (beyond some intellectual or theological points) the religion and the people itself, especially (when attacking) Prophet Muhammad.
Frankly, it is my view that the claims you make (and it's not just you, it is others as well) are being made in order to cover up and justify the current immoral acts of some people, and to diminish any sympathy towards Muslims generally.
Here's one of the things you state above " Furthermore, the Qur'an has many verses asserting the superiority of Muslims over "others" which, in today's context, only serves to create division.
You keep dodging the issue."
While I am not sure which particular Quranic texts you have in mind, in any case, most followers of religions see themselves in some sort of special way.
Here's a couple from the Bible.
Acts 4:12 - Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
Romans 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36).
While I am not getting into the meanings or historicity of these texts, the point I am making is that even with above language, it doesn't bother me that Christians say it or believe it. Even if they see themselves superior to all mankind ( I am not saying that they do, or that Muslims see themselves that way either), does it have to be dismissed as "serving to create division"?
I'm pointing out your double standard here, you are critical of the Qur'an yet seemingly silent about the Bible.
Waheed, I don't really want to let you divert this into a "whataboutism" concerning Christianity. I will, however, mention that the Bible is not perfect and there are parts which resonate with me and parts which do not. I have made reference to both sorts in the past. For example:
- With respect to delusional biblical prophets, I have written about a particularly abhorrent story about a father who suffers a psychotic trance and nearly murders his son. Not only does this story appear in the Bible, but a similar story is highly praised in Islam. In a post, I made mention of a poem based on this story which I found particularly moving and I invited discussions. https://poets.org/poem/parable-old-man-and-young
- The Book of Jonah resonates with me. If I recall correctly, you made mention of the Qur'anic verses related to Jonah in one of your articles and I invited a discussion of the difference with the biblical version of the story. I don't recall how this was left.
- There is much in the books of the apostles of Jesus which is problematic.
Yes, of course, and I said so at the outset that I returned here to find out what you were saying about the immoral acts of some people. I wanted to know what you were saying to ensure that the sympathy towards Muslim would NOT be diminished. However, it seems clear that you want to turn a blind eye to the realities of Islam-inspired terrorism. You do know that there is a very real possibility of a President taking office in 2025 who would see nothing wrong with a Muslim ban and would not be accountable to the Constitution or the courts?
I am not "a prophet" but it isn't difficult to foresee the challenges facing Muslims in the West as this conflict inevitably widens.
Soorah Al-Baqarah is the main texts that I am referring. I have mentioned this before and I'll say it again... I started reading the Qur'an from the beginning and I couldn't read to the end of this chapter; I found it so disturbing. You really need to put aside your own perspective and try to read this chapter from the perspective of a non-Muslim. The polemics are unbearable.
I find 47:4 particular offensive: "Had Allah willed, He ˹Himself˺ could have inflicted punishment on them. But He does ˹this only to˺ test some of you by means of others." when taken together with 32:13 "And if We had willed, We could have given every soul its guidance ..."
It's obvious that you don't get where I'm coming from, but let me try: Muhammad had to explain to his followers why they had to engage in battle at Badr. After all, if Allah is protecting them, it shouldn't be necessary to fight; especially not against their own tribes, even family members, coming from Mecca. Why should it be necessary to use force when Almighty Allah could convert them to Islam if he had willed? So Muhammad had to resolve this paradox. He does so by justifying the existence of non-Muslims as "a test" so that his followers could prove their faith by engaging in battle against their own tribes.
This is a theological problem that leads to real world problems when the theology includes a belief that one group has this sort of special relationship with God. And, by the way, tying this back to what I said above: this is the subject of the Book of Jonah and why that book resonates with me.
@NB
Thanks for your comments.
" Waheed, I don't really want to let you divert this into a "whataboutism" concerning Christianity. I will, however, mention that the Bible is not perfect and there are parts which resonate with me and parts which do not. I have made reference to both sorts in the past.."
You have cited Biblical accounts you find touching, while referencing stories you find troubling. My point in my initial references was that your criticism of (perceived) religious superiority (of Muslims) could just as well be directed towards Christian texts. Rather than addressing that issue I raised, you went to a different point, seemingly as a way to defend your comments and avoid the point I was making.
" . I wanted to know what you were saying to ensure that the sympathy towards Muslim would NOT be diminished. However, it seems clear that you want to turn a blind eye to the realities of Islam-inspired terrorism. You do know that there is a very real possibility of a President taking office in 2025 who would see nothing wrong with a Muslim ban and would not be accountable to the Constitution or the courts?" (N.B. quote)
In polite terms, we disagree with the causes of violence. You chose to see it from the perspective of Pro-Israel and Evangelical voices, they claim "Islam is the problem", yet they ignore their own racism and actions in recent history.
I don't want to get too distracted down the rabbit-hole of future elections at this stage.
" It's obvious that you don't get where I'm coming from, but let me try: Muhammad had to explain to his followers why they had to engage in battle at Badr. After all, if Allah is protecting them, it shouldn't be necessary to fight; especially not against their own tribes, even family members, coming from Mecca. Why should it be necessary to use force when Almighty Allah could convert them to Islam if he had willed? So Muhammad had to resolve this paradox. He does so by justifying the existence of non-Muslims as "a test" so that his followers could prove their faith by engaging in battle against their own tribes." (NB)
There's a couple of problems in your recollection of this, i.e. that the Muslims were not trying to convert the Makkans by force. In fact, the Muslims had to flee Makkah, having their properties etc.. stolen by the Makkan leadership. It was really in response to Makkan actions such as this which provided the backround for Badr, and indeed, even though outnumbered, the Muslims proved triumphant at that time.
....
" This is a theological problem that leads to real world problems when the theology includes a belief that one group has this sort of special relationship with God. And, by the way, tying this back to what I said above: this is the subject of the Book of Jonah and why that book resonates with me." (N-B quote)
This is a rather good point to discuss in an entirely different place and time. For now, I will only share a comment that when Islam (Qur'an in particular) is examined, it presents God in very universal terms. It never calls him "Lord of Arabs" for example, and acknowledges God as caring for, creating and providing for all peoples, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Yes, it preaches that certain doctrines or ideas are incorrect and deserving of correction, and it provides reasoning for that, but at the end of the day, as Qur'an itself asserts, truth is from God, whosoever accepts, let him accept, and whosoever rejects, let him reject.
Post a Comment