tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60437669680290811.post5198047459749339998..comments2024-03-24T18:41:14.098-07:00Comments on Shamsuddin Waheed: Quranic Study Notes: Comparing faith and its opposite ( 10: 95-100)Shamsuddin Waheedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04457661333236229563noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60437669680290811.post-42171779989903804952019-08-26T12:04:17.249-07:002019-08-26T12:04:17.249-07:00Hello Waheed,
I'm not sure what you hoped for...Hello Waheed,<br /><br />I'm not sure what you hoped for from a post like that. I raised several issues and you didn't respond to any of them.<br /><br />The idea that the Qur'an transcends and replaces the previous scriptures can only be determined by reading those scriptures. It seems that Muslims are being told that they don't have to and your reference to Jonah shows me how little you understand that particular book.<br /><br />You used the word "whimsical" in another comment and now I'm thinking about that word and how you are trying to narrow this particular verse. You seem to be implying that Muhammad is saying that the Meccans should ask those reading the scriptures, but ask only about those parts that supports his claims. Yes, it is whimsical how Islam picks and chooses what parts of the Bible are the good bits and which are not. I do this, too, but I'm honest about it and I'm also open to changing my position if faced with a convincing argument.<br /><br />But my main point was the dishonesty of Muslims writing about Islam generally, and on aboutislam specifically. Here in the West, dishonesty is a far broader concept than simply lying. I have asked you about your view on the dishonesty exhibited by a Muslim writer in a particular article. There is a maxim in the West "Qui tacet consentit" which comes into play when a response is expected but not forthcoming. If you do not respond, then I can only assume that you are complicit in the fraud.NBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60437669680290811.post-11904766383109120722019-08-22T16:18:11.891-07:002019-08-22T16:18:11.891-07:00Hello N.B.,
With regards to the article on abouti...Hello N.B.,<br /><br />With regards to the article on aboutislam website, the simple fact of the matter is that it (and what you asserted you found regarding the sources the article cites ) has no relevance at all to the Quranic verse you quoted from this blog post.<br /><br />The Quranic verse simply says that the Arabs, who are unfamiliar with all the talk of revelation etc, should simply ask those around them about this type of experience.<br /><br /> Shamsuddin Waheedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04457661333236229563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60437669680290811.post-23041190726830518472019-08-19T14:57:57.786-07:002019-08-19T14:57:57.786-07:00Hi Waheed. Now that I've read the Book of Jon...Hi Waheed. Now that I've read the Book of Jonah, I have more to say.<br /><br />First, I have to ask: "have you read the Book of Jonah?" It is apparent that Muhammad did not read it, and I have to wonder if Muslims generally have read the story. Reading in the Qur'an, it assumes that people are familiar with the story, so you'd think that the Bible would be the source of important details for discussions about Jonah, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the Islamic corruption of the story Of Jonah obliterates its meaning.<br /><br />You praise Jonah, but the biblical character is far from praiseworthy. He is driven by hatred for the Assyrians. He is driven to the point that he would disobey God and flee as far away as he can to avoid his commission. The Qur'an adds (Q 21:87) that Jonah while in the depth of darkness said "I have been of the wrongdoers", but what is the wrongdoing that he is repenting? Only that he tried to flee from God. But we see from Jonah 4 that Jonah is actually unrepentant and is angry that he had to fulfill his commission and warn the Assyrians. He did not want to warn them. He hated them and he wanted to witness their destruction.<br /><br />The Book ends with questions: "Is it right for you to be angry?" and "should I (God) not have concern for the great city of Nineveh ... also so many animals?"! The author of this Book leaves these questions unanswered.<br /><br />This book is not about the miraculous redemption of Nineveh, something that almost all scholars agree never happened. It is about Jonah's attitude of hatred and his desire to see his enemy destroyed and that he would go as far as to flee from God in the hope that this destruction would happen.<br /><br />Context matters: The book was written at a time when the Jews were attempting to re-establish their community in Israel after the Assyrians had been destroyed and the Persians allowed them to return and rebuild Jerusalem. Within this community there were people like Jonah who were teaching exclusivity and separatism and this story satirizes them in the hope of changing their attitudes.<br /><br />I love this book because it contains important lessons for all of us, about hatred and not wishing harm on our enemies.<br /><br />Muslims should read this Book and learn from it. Even Maududi who writes "lots were cast to pick out a person to be thrown overboard" This is simply ridiculous and totally misses the point. Jonah 1 explains in detail how Jonah came to be thrown overboard. Each chapter is filled with meaning, if one is open to understanding it.NBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60437669680290811.post-20364925760056886682019-08-12T09:53:42.917-07:002019-08-12T09:53:42.917-07:00Hello Waheed.
You begin with Qur'an 10:94 &qu...Hello Waheed.<br /><br />You begin with Qur'an 10:94 "[O Muhammad],... ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you"<br /><br />I was surprised to read in a recent aboutislam article (https://aboutislam.net/reading-islam/understanding-islam/the-story-of-prophet-abraham-in-the-bible-and-quran/ linked from whyislam) <i>"according to Jesuit father Edward T Oakes not only did the Quran both transcend and replace the Torah and Gospel; it commanded nothing less than a return to the ‘religion of Abraham’."</i> It seemed unlikely to me that a Jesuit father could believe such a thing. Fortunately, Father Oakes' article can be found on the internet and we can see the context: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/02/the-monotheists-jews-christians-and-muslims-in-conflict-and-competition. In the article, we discover first of all that the words are not from Oakes, but are from a book by F.E.Peters that Oakes is reviewing. This book itself can be previewed on the internet at https://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Monotheists_Jews_Christians_and_Musl.html?id=YBOLc6kAx3wC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false<br /><br />More importantly, neither Oakes nor Peters is claiming that the Quran actually transcends and replaces the Torah and Gospol. They are saying that this is something that Muslims believe and that this belief is the underlying cause of conflict between Muslims and both Jews and Christians. Oakes describes Peter's book as a "grim book".<br /><br />So the question I asked myself is "why is the author of the aboutislam article so seriously misrepresenting what they are saying?" The article is dishonest in the very worst way. <br />This question has two sides:<br />First, what has aboutislam twisted these words into saying? It is a unconscionable attempt to imply that a Christian Father accepts the Qur'an as a religious Truth. If Oakes were alive today, he would be aghast at the suggestion.<br /><br />Second, it avoids F.E.Peter's actual meaning, which is very grim: He points out that out of necessity Muslims must believe that it is a Truth that the Qur'an transcends and replaces the prior revelations. Otherwise, why would Allah send another prophet at this time and place? Without this belief, the Arabs could have simply converted to Judaism. In order to justify his mission, Muhammad had to tear down these religions with polemics and slander, resulting in perpetual conflict for which there is no possibility for resolution. This is the grim message from Peter's book and reported in Oakes' review.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, aboutislam is not interested in reporting with honesty what is actually being said.<br /><br />But this raised another question for me: "why are Islamic apologetics so filled with dishonenty and fallacy?" This aboutislam article contains a blatant example of dishonesty, but I could point out many more dishonest articles.<br /><br />I believe that the answer lies in the weakness of Islamic faith. Behind a facade of piety lies an insecurity and fear. The murders of Jews that took place during Muhammad's lifetime were motivated by this fear. If Muslims sincerely believed in Allah and in a Divine Will, they would feel no need to murder innocent people. Mu'adh was desperate to "please Allah" by fulfilling what he thought was "Allah's decree" but in doing so he exposes how weak his faith actually was. Muhammad himself was guilty of many acts which would not have been committed by a man of true faith.<br /><br />Having faith in a lie is worse than no faith at all and if it isn't a lie that the Qur'an transcends the Torah and Gospel, then why do Muslims resort to dishonesty and fallacy?NBnoreply@blogger.com