Note:
Below is a link as well as timestamps for the Interfaith Council of Southern Nevada's forum, in which I was a presenter. In addition to the video and timestamps, the entirety of my intended presentation (cut short because of time restrictions) is shared within this post.
Timestamps:
0:33 Marvin Gowryn remarks
3:20 Moderator's welcome (Ellie Rouhani)
10:50 Scientology center introduction
15:00 Moderator's instructions
Presentations
18:44 Donna Mead (Pagan)
26:46 Deacon John Nixon (Greek Orthodox)
34:06 Imam Shamsuddin Waheed (Islam)
42:05 Dr. Thomas Selover (Unification church)
49:51 Rev. Laura Hallett (Religious science)
57:42 Rev. Joan Roeschke (Scientology)
103:35- Q and A session
Click here to view forum video
Open forum presentation 11/12/23 Las Vegas, Nevada
Good evening! I am honored to be here for the Interfaith
council of Southern Nevada’s annual panel discussion. WE are to share a bit of
our faith that may not be properly understood or widely known, and to
accomplish this, we have to understand that “Islam” is nothing more than an
Arabic word which means to submit or surrender to God’s will. The one who does
this action of submission is called a “Muslim”.
Thus, it is appropriate to call Jesus a Muslim, to call
Abraham a Muslim, to call Moses a Muslim. Yes, the format of their rituals,
their expression and their laws differed from the Muslims of today, but they
nonetheless submitted to God’s will. Our belief is that the process of prophet
and scripture sending finds its conclusion with the Qur’an coming forth to
Muhammad, who is called “The seal of the Prophets”.
The laws and doctrines of that which came to Muhammad are
rational, logical, and fit within any environment or context. A summary of all
of this is as follows. (five pillars) (1) Belief in the One and Only God, and
that Muhammad was a messenger of God. (2) daily prayers. (3) Regular charity.
(4) Fasting in Ramadan, if health conditions allow. (5) Pilgrimage to Makkah,
if health and financial conditions allow.
The beliefs are summarized in “articles of faith” (1) God
(2) Angels (3) Scriptures: signifying Divine communication. (4) Messengers. (5)
Judgement day. (6) That the limitations of existence, both good and bad,
emanate within God’s rules.
These actions and beliefs give Muslims strength. Islam is
the fastest growing religion in the world, and
a Pew Research Centre report
asserts that by 2070, it will be the largest religion in the world. The strengths of Islam include an easily
understood theological foundation, firm morals yet flexibility in its
application. It values marriage, family, care for the poor, education, and
clean living. For examples of flexibility, we can look at the dietary code and
daily worship. Pork is famously not allowed on the dinner-plate, yet the Qur’an
itself allows it if under starving conditions. Similarly, we are to offer
prayers five times daily, preceded with a washing, and the prayer itself having
standing, bowing and prostration, yet the washing can be dispended with if
water is unavailable by simply a rubbing of soil, and the prayers can be
shortened in length and combined with other prayers when conditions such as
traveling and combat are present.
Some fun facts include the following: Jesus is revered in
Islam; he is mentioned by name 25 times in the Qur’an. However, we don’t follow
the idea that he was in fact God or part of a trinity. Only God can be God, God
has no partner. Moses is also in the Qur’an, details on his life and mission
form a great deal of the Quranic content, even more than the life of Muhammad
the Prophet. Our custom is to say “peace be upon him” after the names of all of
the prophets, not just the Prophet Muhammad.
Another fun fact is that Muslims can overcome cultural and racial
divisions and form healthy communities with ease. Our mosque, Masjid Ibrahim of
Las Vegas, proudly has a minimum of 9 different ethnic groups forming the
community. It is the Prophet Muhammad
who said that there is no virtue in being white as opposed to black or arab as
opposed to not being an Arab. He said the only criteria for virtue is one’s
awareness of God. All of the Islamic
guidelines are present for human safety and happiness.
Islam is very practical, yet widely misunderstood. One issue
is that of Jihad. It is true that
Islam is not a pacifist faith, yet jihad does not mean “holy war”.
Rather it means “struggle” and the term is used in both military and non-
military context within the Islamic texts. The Islamic rules of war are very
clear, it forbids the targeting of civilians, and war itself is deemed a last
resort.
Islam also delivers the ultimate liberation of women, both
sexes have natural and cultural functions. The 4th chapter of the
Qur’an is entitled “women”, and, contrary to popular assertion, gives
inheritance rights and freedom of marriage choice. I am proud to note that our
mosque founder is the 1st woman to initiate construction of a mosque
in the USA, her name is Sharaf Haseebullah, who is present this evening.
The primary sources of Islam are the Qur’an, God’s words, as
delivered over a 23 year period, something which happened over 1400 years ago,
and the words, actions of the Prophet Muhammad. His words are recorded in
sources called the hadeeth literature.
This literature is NOT considered sacred, but it is nonetheless important. The
format for matters such as the daily prayers come to us from Muhammad, as
recorded in that literature.
I would like to share one more relevant teaching from the
Qur’an. It tells us to respect our parents, even if they are not believers. It
says not to follow them if they attempt to impose on us incorrect notions. Yet
we are still to be with them in this world. Wa
Saahib-humaa fid dunya Ma’roofa. This fact alone should be sufficient to
prove that Islam is not some violent force out to destroy everything. It
teaches respect, love and compassion.
18 comments:
Very well said
Waheed, in another thread, you have asked me to elaborate on my comment "I will say that I have been surprised by some Muslims who have been far less truthful with me than I would expect." There are examples of half-truths in your talk which are intended to mislead your listeners. It took me a while to learn that I had to dig out the rest of the truth.
1. What does it mean to be "a Muslim"?
You define Muslim as one who has submitted to God's will. This is "true" in the sense that that is how you have defined the word; basically, true by definition. However, to be recognized as a Muslim, (the other half of the truth) it is necessary to swear allegiance to Muhammad (the Shahada). That is widely understood to be the determining factor in identifying as Muslim. Do you disagree? Therefore, it is NOT true, by our normal understanding of what the Muslim identity is, that anyone before Muhammad could be identified as a Muslim.
Describing Jesus and Moses as Muslims is simply a trick to try to mislead people into thinking that non-Muslims and Muslims have more in common than they actually do.
2. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.
You cite this to support your claim of "the strengths of Islam", yet this growth is driven by the high birth rate in Muslim populations.
3. Is Jesus revered in Islam?
Your "evidence" that Jesus is revered in Islam is that he is mentioned by name 25 times. If I'm not mistaken, Satan is mentioned 88 times. Does that mean that you revere Satan even more than Jesus?
Again, this is a deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking that Islam has more in common with Christianity than it does. I was astonished to learn how little of the Gospel message found its way into the Quran.
What do these 25 mentions actually say about Jesus? Be honest about it!
4. What is "Jihad"?
You admit that the word IS used in a military context; in other words, a "holy war" is, in fact, "jihad". You claim that it is forbidden to target civilians, yet civilians have been targeted. Do you condemn that? You claim that war is deemed a last resort, but what does "last resort" mean?
You are trying to cushion the commandments that are found in the Quran to carry out holy wars, but is anyone buying what you are trying to sell?
5. Women's rights.
Wow. The title of a chapter is "women", that is true, but what does the chapter actually say about women? Doesn't it say that women are worth half what a man is?
And what about: "But if you want to replace one wife with another and you have given one of them a great amount [in gifts], do not take [back] from it anything. Would you take it in injustice and manifest sin?"
Women are being treated like chattels.
Why not be more direct about how women are actually viewed?
6. "It tells us to respect our parents, even if they are not believers."
Maybe we just have a different idea of what "respect ... even if they are not believers" means:
"You already have an excellent example in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, “We totally dissociate ourselves from you and ˹shun˺ whatever ˹idols˺ you worship besides Allah. We reject you. The enmity and hatred that has arisen between us and you will last until you believe in Allah alone.” The only exception is when Abraham said to his father, “I will seek forgiveness for you,˹” adding, “but˺ I cannot protect you from Allah at all.”
"And the request of forgiveness of Abraham for his father was only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became apparent to him [i.e., Abraham] that he [i.e., the father] was an enemy to Allāh, he disassociated himself from him. Indeed was Abraham compassionate and patient."
You aren't telling lies, but you aren't telling the whole truth, either.
@ anonymous: Thanks.
@ N-B:
Thanks for numbering the issues you have with the presentation. It makes it easier to address.
(1) I did not claim that Moses, Jesus or Abraham followed the laws, rites and rituals of Muhammad, upon them all be peace. They were those who submitted themselves to God. That is the meaning of the term Muslim. You are thinking in terms of a limited group, assuming Muhammad as the founder of Islam, etc, but that is not how the Qur'an presents it. Indeed, it says "Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, he submitted in all uprightness and he was not a polytheist" ( Q 3:67, Saheeh international translation).
The term translated above as "He submitted in all uprightness" is "Kaana Haneefan Musliman". I'm showing you here how the Qur'an uses the term "Muslim". Similarly, I have explained "Islam" before. This is not my own personal interpretation of "Muslim" or "Islam". This is mainstream doctrine, fully in line with the Qur'an, Sunnah and the usage of these terms in the Arabic language.
You seem to be claiming the audience was deceived by not mentioning Muhammad. If that is your claim, I invite you to watch it again. In the explanation of the five pillars, the Prophet's name and claim are clearly mentioned.
Our belief is that they all were upon the path of submission to God. They had different rituals, laws and language, but were nonetheless seeking to obey God. That, in Arabic, is called "Islam" and the doers of it are known as "Muslims". I don't know how much clearer I can make it.
(2) I don't deny the role of high birth rates, but those "born into it" are usually inevitably raised with respect for the teachings and values mentioned. I would also like to add that people converting to Islam from non-Muslim backrounds is likewise very high.
(3) The mentioning of Jesus (upon whom be peace) 25 times is not the only evidence for Muslim reverence for him. His birth, some of his sayings (as per Quranic revelation) and a number of other content is present regarding him. Your assertion about Satan being mentioned a certain number of times proves nothing, because in all places, the Qur'an is critical of Satan, and repeatedly teaches "Do not worship Satan, as he is to you an open enemy" (Q 36:60). I also clearly mentioned that Muslims and Christians don't agree on the Trinity, so your claim of deception falls flat on its face!
(4) Yes, I condemn attacks on noncombatants. It seems you did not actually watch the video, because that is clearly stated in the q and a session. Qur'an says not to cross the lines, don't be aggressive (2:190).
.....
(5) No, Qur'an does not say a woman is worth half a man or whatever you tried to imply. Qur'an says that men and women are a clothing for each other, it says that God has made man and women to live with love and mercy ( Q 2:187 and 30:21). The Quranic verse you alluded to is saying that dowry and gifts should not be taken back from the woman after divorce. So, sorry, your assertion is totally off the mark!
(6) Citing the situation of Abraham is an exception to the rule of being kind to your parents. You may have conveniently forgotten that we have discussed that in the past as well. In fact, below is what I have said on this in the past : " Abraham's exampleعَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ - - is given, in that his father had been a clear enemy, taking many actions to actually put Abraham in danger of losing his life. If a parent or another loved one actually takes steps to take your life, at a minimum, one must protect himself from clear and present danger. This is something which is widely understood in the modern world, in that "family" and "friends" can actually be the worse of enemies, for a variety of reasons. (ft.2)
Thus, there is a clear difference between belligerent foes and those in one's family/circle who, while maintaining a differing religious identity, do not have enmity."
https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2020/10/are-muslims-allowed-to-pray-for-non.html
Returning to (4) briefly, what I meant is that the term "Jihad" means struggle, and that in Qur'an, hadeeth and normative discourse, it is used in both military and non military ways. Thus, it does not have the meaning of "holy war" and such language has actually not been used by Muslims. Indeed, to render Jihad as "holy war" would be a big mistake.
If you are an honest reader, you should recognize with all the above that there was no lying or deception taking place. You can disagree with conclusions and points, however it would be totally dishonest on your part in accusing me of presenting half-truths about Islam.
Let's start with just the first one:
The word "Muslim", as with many words, means different things in different contexts. You are exploiting two meanings of the word by pointing out that Jews and Christians, generally, fit the definition of the word "Muslim" and thus saying, correctly, that Jews and Christians could be called Muslims. However, that is very different from saying that Jews and Christians ARE Muslims, which is what you are implying by mentioning this connection. You are shifting to a different meaning of the word.
If Jews WERE Muslims, then many texts would make no sense at all. For example, in a hadith that you cite a long while ago (YES, YOU CITED THIS HADITH; that's how I know about it!) it reads: "Mu’adh said: Who is this? Abu Musa said: He was a Jew. He embraced Islam. Then he reverted to his false religion and became a Jew. Mu’adh said: I won’t sit until he is killed according to the decree of Allah and His Apostle (may peace be upon him) (in this case). " (Sahih Muslim Book 20, Hadith Number 4490)
or, quoting a hadith as cited in the Hamas Covenant 1988:
""The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)."
That's just two examples.
It is clear that, from the Muslim perspective, being a Jew is very different from being a Muslim. Your words were: "It is appropriate to call" someone who was not a Muslim a Muslim. This is dishonest. If you were being honest, you would be clear how different Islam is from Judaism and Christianity, and how this difference makes it possible for Muslims to view Jews in such as way that their murder is permissible.
As for the verse Q 3:63, you need to remember the context. At the time, there were still Jews living in Medina and Muhammad still had hopes of bringing them into his cult. His attitude towards the Jews changed over time.
Yes, of course, I consider Muhammad the founder of Islam. Nobody affirmed the Shahada before Muhammad's time. It is circular logic to rely on Muhammad's own testimony in his own writings to believe otherwise!
@ N.B.
Once again, either by accident or otherwise, you are misrepresenting my words. I have stated that the Qur'an refers to Jesus, Moses and Abraham as "Muslims" who implemented "Islam", or submission to the will of God. I didn't call Jews or Christians by this term per se.
As for the two hadeeths you have shared, I am sure I have never cited them, not even the first one, let alone the second. I believe you are mixing me up with someone else.
You accuse me of dishonesty in this presentation, that's a serious accusation. I said it was appropriate to call Abraham etc "Muslim" in light of their actions and the meaning of the word, as well as what the Qur'an directly said.
Whatever you chose to think about Muhammad the messenger of God, (peace be on all of the messengers), neither the Qur'an nor Muslim tradition changed. Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were still depicted as submitting to God's will, and that is the meaning of "Muslim".
If a person becomes a Muslim, they do so in a formal sense by reciting their acknowledgement that there is only one God and that Muhammad was a messenger of God. The latter reference has a practical part in that it shows that what was given to him is acknowledged to be God's message, thereby acknowledging all of its contents, and it was the content of the revelation that taught us love and respect for Abraham, for Moses, for Jesus.
We have had this discussion long ago, so I am at a loss why you continue to not understand what I am saying. I have shared via the Qur'an and Arabic language, moreover, this is standard Islamic theology, not my own understanding.
So, while you can disagree with the message, it is a wild jump to make an assertion that I was being dishonest with the audience.
You should strive to read more carefully.
Waheed, you need to think about WHY you say the words: "WE are to share a bit of our faith that may not be properly understood or widely known, and to accomplish this, we have to understand that “Islam” is nothing more than an Arabic word which means to submit or surrender to God’s will. The one who does this action of submission is called a “Muslim”.
Thus, it is appropriate to call Jesus a Muslim, to call Abraham a Muslim, to call Moses a Muslim. Yes, the format of their rituals, their expression and their laws differed from the Muslims of today, but they nonetheless submitted to God’s will."
What is the point?
It simply isn't true that "Islam" is "nothing more than an Arabic word". Furthermore, it does nothing to increase our understanding of Islam to learn that Muhammad engaged in cultural appropriation in the Qur'an. So what if Muhammad used Moses's and Jesus's names in the Qur'an and tells a story of their "submission"?
You are implying that Muslims actually follow the teachings in the Bible, but that is simply not the case. In fact, because of the distorted retellings of Bible stories in the Qur'an, what Muslims learn about the Bible is mostly wrong.
Why not be honest and, instead of implying a commonality, admit that the stories in the Qur'an about biblical characters tell a different story than the corresponding stories in the Bible and that they serve a different purpose?
Why not be honest about the antisemitism in the hadiths? "I am sure I have never cited them" is no excuse. You cited the first one in a article where you were praising Muhammad's wisdom for appointing Abu Musa rather than a man from the Ash'ari tribe as governor of Yemen, even though Abu Musa's first act as governor was to murder a Jew. (I'm still looking for the article)
Doesn't your interfaith audience deserve to know where today's antisemitism is coming from? Shouldn't you be honest that Islamic texts are full of antisemitic texts that are being used to foment violence against Jews? Don't you feel any responsibility at all for doing something about it? Isn't "Imam" nothing more than an Arabic word that means "leader"?
PS. You cited Sahih Muslim Book 20, Hadith Number 4490 in
https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2019/05/exploring-how-our-religious-and.html
Salaam Brother waheed sab,
With all respect, you need to ban this guy or atleast ignore him.
Clearly he is just an idiot who refuses to understand simple things.
@ N-B
Let's do this one more time..
You wrote " Waheed, you need to think about WHY you say the words: "WE are to share a bit of our faith that may not be properly understood or widely known, and to accomplish this, we have to understand that “Islam” is nothing more than an Arabic word which means to submit or surrender to God’s will. The one who does this action of submission is called a “Muslim”.
Thus, it is appropriate to call Jesus a Muslim, to call Abraham a Muslim, to call Moses a Muslim. Yes, the format of their rituals, their expression and their laws differed from the Muslims of today, but they nonetheless submitted to God’s will."
What is the point?"
I already know why I said it, it's because its true, from the perspective of the rules of Arabic language, from the perspective of Islamic theology..
" It simply isn't true that "Islam" is "nothing more than an Arabic word". Furthermore, it does nothing to increase our understanding of Islam to learn that Muhammad engaged in cultural appropriation in the Qur'an. So what if Muhammad used Moses's and Jesus's names in the Qur'an and tells a story of their "submission"?" (N-B quote)
"Cultural appropriation"? Come on now, you cannot be serious. We are talking about a religious claim. If you listen to my friday sermons, almost every time- in the beginning of the sermon- I mention that we believe God has sent messengers and scriptures throughout time. It is an Islamic belief that they came to both the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. It is our belief that these messengers were teaching people to submit to God's. That process is called- in Arabic- "Islam" and the doers of it are called "Muslims".
To return to the meanings of these words, the Qur'an asserts "Say (i.e. the Prophet and his followers are supposed to proclaim) "We believe in God, what has been sent unto us (i.e. Quran), what has been sent to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, the absaat, and what has been bestowed to Moses, Jesus and the Prophets, making no distinction between anyone of them, and we are for him submissive" (Q 2:137).
The last sentence, in Arabic, is wa nahnu lahu Muslimoon.
There are countless other examples in Qur'an showing the usage of the term Muslim ("Muslimoon" above is the plural). This text shows the theological underpinnings as well as the usage of the term.
Yes, we don't agree with Jews and Christians with certain theological points (something which I have articulated clearly in all my posts and speeches which you have asserted otherwise), nonetheless we believe in Moses and Jesus (upon them both be peace). There's no deception taking place.
" You are implying that Muslims actually follow the teachings in the Bible, but that is simply not the case. In fact, because of the distorted retellings of Bible stories in the Qur'an, what Muslims learn about the Bible is mostly wrong.
Why not be honest and, instead of implying a commonality, admit that the stories in the Qur'an about biblical characters tell a different story than the corresponding stories in the Bible and that they serve a different purpose?" (N-B quote)
I have also been clear that we Muslims don't accept the Bible as it currently is as being the full unadulterated words of God. It's also important to (since you brought it up) to state that the Qur'an repeatedly tells us the stories it contains (including that of prophets also found in the Bible) are there in order to bring forth points and lessons, and not simply as a historical narrative.
No deception taking place.
" Why not be honest about the antisemitism in the hadiths? "I am sure I have never cited them" is no excuse. You cited the first one in a article where you were praising Muhammad's wisdom for appointing Abu Musa rather than a man from the Ash'ari tribe as governor of Yemen, even though Abu Musa's first act as governor was to murder a Jew. (I'm still looking for the article)" (N-B quote).
You made a citation which I shall address shortly, but antisemitism? Come on, now. That's a serious assumption, one which is a bit funny, because Muhammad and the Arabs are also semitic. At least come up with a different term.
" Doesn't your interfaith audience deserve to know where today's antisemitism is coming from? Shouldn't you be honest that Islamic texts are full of antisemitic texts that are being used to foment violence against Jews? Don't you feel any responsibility at all for doing something about it? Isn't "Imam" nothing more than an Arabic word that means "leader"?" (N-B quote).
You are guilty of making assumptions here. Come on now, the report you cited is not cited by anyone as a means to "foment violence." I have only seen it picked up by Islamophobes as a means to generate fear of Muslims and Islam. As I have told you repeatedly, it was Jews who fared well in Muslim lands, in contrast to Christian Europe. Had Islamic texts been understood as giving foundation for Anti-Jewish sentiments, Jews would have never been in Muslim lands.
As for the narration you have cited, it's a little bit different from the one I shared in the presentation you have referenced. Below is what I have cited then:
The tradition (hadeeth) asserts that a man came to him, seeking to be appointed a governor. The Prophet replied "By God, we do not appoint someone to this job who seeks after it, or to someone very covetous of it."
Another hadeeth says "Do not ask for position of power. If you are granted the position without asking for it, you will be helped (i.e. by God) in discharging its responsibilities, however if you attain it as a result of your seeking, you will be alone as its captive." (Bukhari/Muslim).
What you shared was a report of similar content but mentioning an execution, one done by a governor rather than the Prophet (peace be upon him).
We haven't covered the full story behind the report, but it is a wild jump to say that it is anti-semitic in nature. After all, Jews continued to live in Arabia, even after the Prophet, and, as said before, the Jewish communities thrived among Muslims.
When I ask why you are saying something, I am asking about your audience. What are you attempting to communicate? Are they buying what you are selling? Are they getting what they think they're buying?
So now that you've established a very broad definition of a Muslim, the obvious question is "Am I a Muslim?" I think the answer is "yes", according to your definition.
Yes, I am serious about "cultural appropriation". Back on whyislam.com, there was a Jewish woman who repeatedly posted: "read the original". At the time, I was unfamiliar with the Qur'anic versions of the biblical stories and I didn't know what she meant. Now I see why she would be bothered by Muhammad's versions. Muslims should read the originals and see for themselves how Muhammad is comparing himself to the biblical prophets in an attempt to substantiate his claim of being like a biblical prophet. The Jewish audience that he was addressing didn't buy what he was selling and your modern audience, if they read the Qur'anic stories, wouldn't buy it either.
The references to Jesus are mostly polemical against the Jews and say little about the Christian message. Other references merely state Muhammad's objection to the "Son-of-God" portrayal of Jesus.
"Muhammad and the Arabs are also semitic." Yes, like it or not, antisemitic is the word that we use, and it is a poor word, however, you should be careful what you wish for: the people who coined the word would be happy to include Arabs in their hate.
I've cited two reports as examples. I could easily find others. The one from the Hamas Charter is undeniably being used to foment violence. The one that you cited simply shows how ubiquitous the anti-Jewish sentiment is in the Islamic literature. If you prefer, I could pull anti-Jewish texts from more recent works like the Heikal book that you recommended to me or from Maududi's tafsir which a Muslim on whyislam.com recommended to me. I am not sourcing from "Islamophobes" (and you have a problem with the word "antisemite" but not that???)
I'm not saying that you quoted the anti-Jewish part of that hadith, however, the narration needs to be understood in the whole and in context. I find the story credible and it is credible that Abu Musa would tell this story. Did he tell the story because of the first part, the part you cited, or is the first part background for the second part about being ordered to murder a Jew?
Jewish communities thrived in Europe; it is easy, very easy, to find the names of prominent Jews who lived in Europe. The Jews were attacked BECAUSE they were so prosperous. I can't believe that you would advance such a foolish argument.
@ N-B
You say " When I ask why you are saying something, I am asking about your audience. What are you attempting to communicate? Are they buying what you are selling? Are they getting what they think they're buying?"
I am communicating what the religion articulates. Ultimately, people make their own judgements on the message and the format itself.
" So now that you've established a very broad definition of a Muslim, the obvious question is "Am I a Muslim?" I think the answer is "yes", according to your definition."
God is the best judge on if a person truly and sincerely submits to him or not. In any case, I have repeatedly said here and elsewhere (because this is not the 1st time you have claimed I am seeking to fool people on the definition of Islam) that the first pillar of the faith as articulated by the Quranic dispensation is that God alone deserves worship, and that Muhammad was a messenger of God. Indeed, it is in the very presentation itself. You may have to watch it again.
" Yes, I am serious about "cultural appropriation". Back on whyislam.com, there was a Jewish woman who repeatedly posted: "read the original". At the time, I was unfamiliar with the Qur'anic versions of the biblical stories and I didn't know what she meant. Now I see why she would be bothered by Muhammad's versions. Muslims should read the originals and see for themselves how Muhammad is comparing himself to the biblical prophets in an attempt to substantiate his claim of being like a biblical prophet. The Jewish audience that he was addressing didn't buy what he was selling and your modern audience, if they read the Qur'anic stories, wouldn't buy it either."
I have read the Biblical accounts of prophets as well as the Quranic accounts. My words are admittedly from the perspective of a believer, nonetheless I find the Quranic accounts as making more sense, and, more importantly, containing deep and important lessons. In fact, the latter is the point. The Qur'an doesn't share stories simply for the sake of stories, they are present in order to drive certain points home, they are there for us to contemplate upon.
In terms of cultural appropriation, this is a very new concept. While I speak from the perspective of faith, even if that is ignored, in terms of Arabs and Jews, there are already deep cultural similarities. Both are semitic peoples (despite your dislike of my reminding you of that), so, if anything, it is Canadians such as yourself who are more guilty of appropriating semitic texts into "your" culture.
I've cited two reports as examples. I could easily find others. The one from the Hamas Charter is undeniably being used to foment violence. The one that you cited simply shows how ubiquitous the anti-Jewish sentiment is in the Islamic literature. If you prefer, I could pull anti-Jewish texts from more recent works like the Heikal book that you recommended to me or from Maududi's tafsir which a Muslim on whyislam.com recommended to me. I am not sourcing from "Islamophobes" (and you have a problem with the word "antisemite" but not that???)"
While I am unsure what Haykal and Maulana Maududi has to do with all of this, what I have attempted to show you is that Jews and Muslims are not some sort of natural enemies, battling for thousands of years. That is simply unsound from a historical viewpoint. That does not negate problems here or there, but it's not the issue of (Islamic) religious texts per se.
....
" Jewish communities thrived in Europe; it is easy, very easy, to find the names of prominent Jews who lived in Europe. The Jews were attacked BECAUSE they were so prosperous. I can't believe that you would advance such a foolish argument."
I mistakenly thought you had more historical knowledge than what you are displaying in the above quotation. While there's no doubt some levels of resentment to Jewish financial successes fed into the the pogroms of Christian Europe, there was also religious frustrations. Jews were targeted throughout Europe in the Middle Ages, they were targeted by the Spanish inquisition, and where would those with the resources flee to ? They would flee to Muslim lands, where they had safety and the ability to go own with their lives and live in accordance with their religious traditions.
"
@ N-B
Regarding the first issue you have cited, i.e. the definition of a Muslim and the accusation of misleading the audience, I think that you should have a read of some of the short writings on this very blog which talks about this issue alone.
While I don't really mind disagreement on the conclusions, I do take exception to the accusation of misleading people regarding the religion of Islam.
Here are some links.
https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2009/04/christianmuslim-identity-thoughts-on.html
(In particular, the section heading "Islam:The path of Jesus and Muhammad" and "Is there a difference between Biblical Islam and Quranic Islam"}
https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2008/01/deen-in-presence-of-god-inclusive-or.html
(In particular, the section heading "Islam", " What about other religions?" " If God rewards my faith, why should I follow the Qur'an and Muhammad"}
There are other articles on this site which has more details, however I hope the above are sufficient to show a consistent presentation of the religion on this point, and that it is not an issue of personal interpretation, but rather it is mainstream Islamic doctrine.
My dear NB:
In light of your good-bye message (this would be the second or maybe third?), it's important to remind you of a few things:
* You are the one who comes to Muslim sites, yet gets offended when Muslims are teaching Islamic texts, doctrines and perspectives. This is beyond bizarre. Again, I remind you of your repeated insults, directed to myself, to other Muslims (both here and on WI), and insults on the character of the Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace.
* You continue to accuse me of some sort of intellectual dishonesty (regarding the meanings of "Muslim" and "Islam") despite repeated explanations and citations of the sources.
* You haven't shared what text you allege I have taken out of context.
* I do not claim that Islam is a passivist faith, it does teach fighting back. This is not only a religious teaching, but simple common sense.
* You, my dear, should not view yourself as a weatherman. I don't think that is a fair self-title. I think you simply enjoy the sound of your own voice, as the expression goes.
* You diminish Muslim tolerance during the middle ages of the Jewish peoples. I have only cited what is well known and established as historical fact. Let's have a look at Rabbi Ken Spiro's assertions on this topic.
So for one thing, the Muslims impacted on the Jews. Some of the greatest Jewish scholars wrote in Arabic. But the impact was much greater the other way around. Indeed there can be no question that the Islamic world, especially in Spain, did remarkably well because of the large number of Jews who were allowed to operate freely there. The positive impact of the Jews of Moslem Spain is yet another example of the fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis: "I will bless you and make your name great. You shall be a blessing. And I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you. (Genesis 12:2-3) To quote the great Jewish historian Cecil Roth:
The essential contribution of the Jews, as Jews, to the cultural life of the medieval world, and of medieval Europe in particular depended basically upon two factors. They were literate: and they were international... Their work as intermediaries between the two mutually-exclusive cultural worlds [Moslem and Christian] was without any doubt the characteristic Jewish function in the Middle Ages: it was a function that they performed by virtue of their specific position and circumstances as Jews. That did not however preclude them from making memorable contributions to European civilization as individuals. (2)
https://aish.com/48950501/
Great job brother Shamsudin Waheed. Very logical and true answers. For the person who clearly seems to be an islamphobe, claiming after he dug out the full truth. Well, it’s one thing to dig out the truth, and it’s another thing to understand it. You appear to be suffering from some sort of cognitive impairment my friend. Dictionary definition of cognitive impairment: Problems with a person's ability to think, learn, remember, use judgement, and make decisions.
Post a Comment