( The following is a partial recording of a recent discussion on friendships that cross theological divides, that took place with Pastor Ed Heilman, of the Park United Church in Toledo, Ohio. He is a leading figure in social justice causes in the NorthWest Ohio area.)
25 comments:
"Oh you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people."
Hello "anonymous"
The verse that you have cited here has an application in the patron-state, not in individual relationships. The Qur'an allows both marriage and other social ties with Jews and Christians (Q 5:5). There is a brief discussion on the cited text in the following article (question #2):
https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2013/04/in-belly-of-beast-questions-on-islamic.html
Perhaps "Anonymous" knows what you mean by "application in the patron-state". I have no idea what that means.
In the earlier article, you used the phrase "patron-client nation states":
These verses are to be understood in context, and to be seen in context of patron-client nation states. Muslims are forbidden in these verses from taking as protectors those whose enmity has already been proven, a common sense teaching!"
It isn't at all clear to me in the context of the time, what patron-client relationship you are referring to. Were the Muslims ever clients of the Jews and Christians or vice versa?
If the verse's meaning is "do not take as protectors those whose enmity has already been proven", then that is what Muhammad would have said, wouldn't he? Why would he muddy the waters by stereotyping Jews and Christians in this way?
I hope your readers will try to balance this verse with Q 5:5 and decide for themselves which of them has the broader context and carries the greater weight.
Your response sounds like bafflegabbery to me, designed to distract from what the verse actually says.
Maybe "Anonymous" will be satisfied by your response. I'll be surprised.
The verse that "anonymous" has posted, and a couple of other verses like it, do not mean "friends" as generally (and incorrectly) translated. "Patron-state" is admittedly modern political language, but basically the verse in question has the meaning of a protector state or entity.
Indeed, if read in context, Q 5:51 shows the above explanation. THE very next verse reads "yet you see those in whose hearts a disease, rushing to them, proclaiming "We fear that a calamity will hit us..." (Q 5:52).
The context continues to Q 5:55, encouraging the Muslims to have faith in God, in themselves and their mission, and to know that the real protection will come with God, and those fellows who share that commitment in their own midst.
So that's your answer? You hide behind some "modern political language" that even Google hasn't heard of? You fail to identify the "protector state or entity" that you allege that the verse applies to? And would it make any difference if it DID refer to communities of people rather than individuals?
Indeed read on and read where the "prophet" stereotypes with "Say, 'O People of the Book ... most of you are fasiqoon'" (Q 5:59). Can you be "fasiqoon" and "awliyaa'" at the same time? And it gets worse in the verses after that.
Your answer is: "Anonymous, pay no attention to that verse, it doesn't mean what it says. I have a different meaning for it. Read some other verses instead." Distract and deflect.
Looking at the presumed timeline of this Soorah... its revelation is said to have immediately preceded the assault on Khaybar. If that was the case, then its purpose was clear. Muhammad was using lies to agitate his base into hatred and then using that hatred to rain violence on the people that he hated.
These words are being used today for the same purpose.
My, aren't we getting agitated!
Yes, Patron client state is what I meant to type, sorry if that confused you.
Other than that, your anger is misplaced.
Your citation of Q 5:59 only supports what I am saying, moreover, it is actually not some personal understanding that is being shared. It is mainstream.
The context that you are citing is common sense, those who are, in fact, making fun of your faith and values, even if they are suppose to share similar values, those who are doing that do not hold you to any respect, and thus cannot be expected to be trusted allies. Common sense!
As for what I have shared, remember that the Qur'an itself allows social ties with Non Muslims. It allows marriage with what it calls people of scripture. It allows us to even eat food slaughtered by them, with the obvious exceptions of pork, alcohol and the like.
It's funny that I am reading your characterization of the Prophet as "using hatred to rain violence on people that he hated", because just this morning I was reading a speech by a Vanderbilt University Professor (a Jewish man himself) who argued that the Prophet's birth and the subsequent rise of the Caliphate actually "saved Jewry from extinction".
You just make it worse and worse, Waheed.
First of all, I'm neither angry nor confused. I won't say the same about Muhammad who, in this Surah, seems to be very angry and very confused.
.. and you still haven't clarified what "patron client state" you are referring to.
Do you really think that it makes things better for me to know that your views of Q 5:59 are "mainstream"?
Do you really think that alliances are impossible between people of differing beliefs? Do you really think that it affects the trust between me and my Christian friends that I think that their beliefs in a virgin birth or resurrection are nonsense and that non-Christians like me make jokes about them?
Do you really think that these pastors and rabbis that you meet with don't understand what your motivation is? Do you really think that they don't feel the same sorts of concerns and frustrations that I feel and wonder what they could do to better deal with the situation?
It is not "common sense" to reject alliances with those who simply have differing religious views. Trustworthiness must be judged on an individual basis and no prejudice should be based on race or religion.
However, I cannot respect someone who characterises an entire populations as engaging in "bi'sa" (Q 5:62,63,79,80). We know that, in general, there are both good and bad people in any population AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, that a society will disintegrate in a short time if the bad people become too numerous. The Jewish communities of Medina were stable communities which had been established for generations, maybe centuries. There is no indication of any instability in these communities at any time and therefore the extreme level of wrongdoing that Muhammad alleges was of his own invention.
I AM a person of faith. I have faith in people generally and, specifically, in your readers and that they are able to distinguish truth from falsehood. I write here in the hope that they will think about what I say and that they will be guided to the truth.
Hello N.B.
* If you are truthful in stating that you ridicule your Christian "friends" for their beliefs (and here I am speaking about more than simple theological disagreements or beliefs), you are actually not their friend, because you are not respecting them and the items which make them them!
* As I have tried to repeatedly tell you, the Qur'an does not stereotype peoples at all. In the Ribaa article I have shared examples of this.
* AS for the readers, I will share that over the years (I think it's been atleast four if not more) you have been posting, I have received many messages from readers, all of whom find not only your posts to be argumentative and disgusting in general, but who refer to you with negative language. The general feedback is is that they see you as not really wanting to do anything but argue, just for the sake of argumentation. So, it's safe to say that in terms of your overall agenda "guidance" to "the truth" (as you see it), it is an utter failure. It's not because we are this and you are that, rather I think it is because that the readers in general have a better understanding of Islam than you do, and are in no need of someone who consistently insults individuals as well as religion to rescue us.
I forgot to answer your question about the Patron-client state.
Basically it means the relationship between a powerful state which offers protection to a smaller one. Such arrangement did exist in the Prophet's time, and certainly exists today. China gives such cover to North Korea, The USA to Israel, and so forth.
Basically the Qur'an says not to trust such arrangements, that such arrangements should really take place with the most trust among those who are similar in faith and values.
It's not a belligerent position. Indeed, it can be read as seeking independence of actions, as not to be beholden to outside interests. Self-employment is better than working for someone else. Having control of one's own time and income is better than others having that control over you.
Sorry if I posted twice, but my post did not show up the first time.
I seem to be having some trouble posting into this thread. I'll break my post down into smaller chunks and hope that that works.
As usual, Waheed, you seem very confused.
Christianity is very different from Islam and you should not try to view them in the same way. Many, many Christians, in much the same way that I do, are able to understand the teachings of Jesus without depending on the mythology surrounding Jesus's life. Christians themselves mock their own doctrine with expressions like "son of a bitch", an expression which implies that Mary was a loose woman. Jesus can still be a divinely-inspired teacher even if not actually divine himself. Most of my Christian friends understand that and, as importantly, they understand that I understand that, even when I challenge their mythology.
If I'm not mistaken, Pastor Heilman has said something like this in a video that you referred to a few months ago and I think that he even said that, because of his rejection of some the Christian doctrine, there are Christians who don't consider him to be a Christian! In fact, at the time that I was viewing this video, I wondered if I was a "Christian" by his definition. Perhaps you should ask him about this subject.
Nevertheless, my friends who are truly Christians respond to my denials in the Christian way: with love, and I have no trouble loving them back. Our bond is strengthened by our honesty with each other. This has not been the case in talking to you and other Muslims in these forums. Most of you have responded with cynicism and ad hominems. You say that your readers respond with disgust. Perhaps my tone has become argumentative, but I have tried many angles to no avail. You stand in a dark place where no light can reach. Non-Muslims who have said far less than what I have said have been murdered by Muslims. I speak out in their remembrance.
I am sincere in my love for you and my hope to "rescue" you. You can mock me all you like, but you will never succeed in angering me. I am not the one defending genocide, and rape, and enslavement, and murder. I know which of us holds the moral high ground.
That worked, so I will continue:
You clearly do not understand the word "stereotype". A stereotype describes a group that mostly shares a common characteristic. A stereotype never implies that ALL of the group shares the same characteristic. We stereotype all of the time and some of our stereotypes are better than others, by which I mean that in some cases MOST of the members share the characteristic and in other cases the characteristic might not be all that common.
Understanding what the word "stereotype" means, it is clear that the Qur'an stereotypes various groups of non-Muslims in many, many places; and that the stereotypes are often unjust.
Your repeated insistence that the Qur'an does not stereotype people at all is a meaningless distraction that you use when you lack evidence for a constructive response. Are you simply copying these responses from somewhere, or have you actually thought about them?
So far, so good.
My final two points:
Your definition of a patron-client system is quite different from what I found once you corrected your error and I knew what I was looking for. Either way, I still don't see how that applies to these verses. Which was the powerful state and which the smaller one? And if such arrangements didn't exist in 7th Century Arabia, how can such a thing be relevant to these verses? This all still reeks of distraction. Again, I wonder if this is just copied from somewhere.
AND FINALLY, MY MAIN POINT:
I must point out that you have repeated the offensive stereotype when you wrote: "that such arrangements should really take place with the most trust among those who are similar in faith and values." That is precisely my point. Sadly, you don't even seem to understand what is bigoted about saying that trustworthiness can be judged based on a person's religion.
N-B
* If what you say is true (regarding having "Christian" friends who mock their religion), you are making judgements based upon -at best- nominal Christians who are-like most people- Christian only in name and some traditions. After all, the NT itself asserts that "blasphemy" against the Holy Ghost cannot be forgiven. While there is certainly a great deal of relaxed attitudes in Christian circles, the way you have described would not fit people committed to Christianity.
* It is almost universally agreed upon that Jesus, despite one's particular theological orientation, was a person deserving respect. Indeed, Muslims, despite being depicted as Anti-Christ in Missionary propaganda, view him as a messenger of God, and will invoke God for his blessings to be on him when he is referred to. If you have friends who respect him (i.e. Jesus, upon whom be peace), that is not surprising. That would be normal.
* Now you are accusing me of supporting rape, murder and genocide? You are really all over the place, aren't you?
* You have been the one who has insulted me, but also the Prophet Muhammad- upon whom be peace, many times over the years on this blog, and when someone calls you out on it, typically in a calm and academic fashion, you resort to anger-filled posts. In addition to that, you tend to act in the same manner even if someone disagrees with you in general.
* If you "love" me and want to "rescue" me, you should not act in such a fashion. Over the years, while only a handful of Muslim readers have engaged you in your comments, I have received many more messages asking why you are so belligerent, readers finding your arguments silly, even asking queries such as why even bother engaging with you. The point being is that your perception of things is incorrect, and typically readers think it comes from a place of arrogance, even the "white-man's burden" (I'm sure you are familiar with that expression).
*"Stereotype" is a term used-typically- in a negative way, to say that a particular group has a particular negative quality. "Jews are greedy", that's a stereotype.
* So when the Qur'an talks about a particular group, it is not naming the entire group typically. It is naming a specific audience. I believe we have gone through this before.
* What is "offensive" about taking a protective stand with those who share your values? The European Union has done it, and, as I think you are aware, there were many voices who opposed Turkey to be included in the EU, viewing them as Non European (because Turkey is a Muslim nation). The EU has relations with non EU nations, but their block exists because of shared borders, interests and (perceived) shared values.
* If there are powers/entities which have worked against one's interest, it is only natural the object of that would be with those with shared interests. I don't know how else to make this clear to you. It doesn't require one be belligerent towards other humans, not at all.
* Have we even discussed the content of the original recording this article highlights? I don't think so.
* There are other articles and recordings on this blog, such as that on Soorah Luqman. Perhaps it would be better if you take a look at those, as that chapter is among the most beautiful and interesting Quranic texts.
Waheed,
You wish to define for Christians what it means to be Christian? I don't make such judgements. I don't "stereotype" what it means to be "Christian". To do so would be arrogant. Christians should take the time to read what Muslims say about them. They would be shocked to learn what I have learned.
I haven't accused you of "supporting rape, murder and genocide". I have simply pointed out as fact that you have defended these over and over again. If ever you should reverse your position and denounce these directly, then I would happily stop raising the immorality of defending those who commit these heinous acts. (And I see you omitted "enslavement". You are willing to admit that one, at least?)
I have never intentional insulted you or Muhammad. I am simply responding to what you have each said and what the history, compiled by Muslims, says. I have cited the evidence for what I write and I stay true to the facts as best as I can.
Why do you say I'm angry? Why would I let someone like you anger me? It makes no sense at all. Frustrated, for sure. It is difficult to teach someone like you. (Is that an insult? Sorry, if it is.)
If your readers find me "belligerent" or "arrogant", they can point it out here. I'm not going to make any attempt to defend my positions to "typical readers" who choose to remain silent.
I can see that you are using "the Qur'an doesn't stereotype" as a way to avoid discussing the actual verses at hand. Muslims have told me that the ENTIRETY of the Jewish people have been cursed by Allah... and I'm not going to waste time seeking out the verse. Muhammad wasn't a stupid man and I think it is easy to understand what he meant when he says "most Jews are like this, but some Jews are not".
You see nothing wrong with judging a person's trustworthiness by his religion? That's up to you. I would never do that. Most Muslims are trustworthy and some are not. That's just obvious. Would you be OK if I stated this the other way around: Most Muslims are untrustworthy, but a few can be trusted". I didn't "stereotype" by your limited definition, yet it would be a platform for hatred, just the same.
N-B,
First, I am happy that you now seem to understand the issue of patron state, and similarly have dropped your argument about the expression "Those who believe" in the previously mentioned Quranic reference.
If what you have stated is true, then it seems that your Christian friends are folks who don't take "their" faith very seriously. I am not in the business of judging a Christian's faith devotion, but if a person of faith has a "friend" who ridicules their faith, the faithful person, at a minimum, must feel uncomfortable.
Yes, you have insulted me many times, but more insults directed towards the Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace. If memory serves, this is the main reason WI forums banned you from posting. Perhaps you felt it would be okay to insult him, as you feel comfortable to insult Christianity in the presence of Christians, but among Muslims (and again, among Christians in general), such behaviour would be seen as totally unacceptable. Indeed, on a side note, in some Muslim countries, it is against the law to insult religion, and some of then name in particular Islam and Christianity alike as being illegal to insult or defame in public.
Finally, in terms of readers, or even myself, there is the issue of deciding what to do with one's time and what is actually interesting. Some people, probably most, simply don't have time or interests to engage with an unknown screenname whom they judge to be too stubborn to see things in a different way.
"First, I am happy that you now seem to understand the issue of patron state"
What are you talking about? What I said was "I still don't see how that applies to these verses. Which was the powerful state and which the smaller one? And if such arrangements didn't exist in 7th Century Arabia, how can such a thing be relevant to these verses? This all still reeks of distraction. Again, I wonder if this is just copied from somewhere."
I now understand what is referred to as patron-client. Do you? Does the source where you copied this "explanation" for Q 5:51 (and the related verses following) give any further details?
Muslims, beginning with Muhammad, have always ridiculed Christian faith. The argument that you are using to deny the authenticity of my friendships with Christians, a subject about which you have no knowledge, would also apply to the interfaith friendships that the original talk was about.
I have felt free to criticism Muhammad, a man of history/legend, in a non-religious way since Muslims seem to have no reciprocal sensitivity. I think that the last straw for me was a story of a Muslim student who had been invited to speak in a church on Easter Sunday and chose to recite verses from Surah Maryam denying their basic faith. Muslims have shown me over and over again that they can dish out criticism of others but cannot stand criticism in return. I actually see your hypersensitivity and your need to outlaw criticism as evidence of the inherent weakness of the religion. Those who are confident in their religion do not need to bully critics into silence.
Also, Muslims seem unable to separate politics from religion. While I don't share Muhammad's religious beliefs, it is his politics that I'm most critical of. Nevertheless, he does use religion to drive his political agenda and so his manipulation of religious ideas needs to be examined in the light of the politics.
If your readers are happy with the way that you represent them, then there is no reason for them to post. I will eventually resign myself to the sad truth that they accept the image that you are creating for them. I keep posting in the hope that someone will speak up in opposition to what you say and then I can reject the notion that all Muslims are like you.
*The relationships that can be described as being forbidden by Q 5:51 are well known and obvious, the patron-client arrangements done by tribal forces.
*While it can be said that some Muslims have ridiculed Christianity, it is not a teaching of the religion itself. Indeed, the Qur'an even tells us not to ridicule the idols of idol-worshippers ( Q 6:108).
* I can't help it if you think I don't know anything about Christians, their religion or relations with them. I do know what you have stated, and it is patently absurd, unless they don't take your ridicule seriously, or there is a misreading on your part. Actually, the latter is more probable.
* You don't simply speak critically on the Prophet. You insult him regularly, perhaps with a hope of generating argument. Maybe you do it to seek attention?
*I actually can agree with you about the Easter service issue. I have seen that video somewhere in the past. That is simply an unprofessional style to do, and actually counterproductive. You yourself say it was a "Muslim student" rather than an Imam or someone more suited for that role. What do you say to a figure such as John Hagee? He is not a student. He is clergy, who has spent most of his career demonizing Islam.
* I hope you get a chance to go to Muslim countries, because they ban making fun of Islam and Christianity in order to not create religious and sectarian conflicts, not as a means of bullying critics. I have seen this myself.
* You write "I will keep posting in hope that someone will speak up in opposition to what you say and and then I can reject the notion that all Muslims are like you." That's a very telling statement. You are just an opposition figure? In the sense that you oppose simply to oppose? If I am so bad, why post here? Why should "I" be "opposed"?
* I don't claim, nor have I ever claimed, that all Muslims are like me. There are over a billion Muslims, we are not monolithic in thinking. Your sentiment is very strange. It is actually illogical.
Oh, my... "are well known and obvious, the patron-client arrangements done by tribal forces."
Those are the words of someone who has heard something but doesn't understand what he has heard well enough to articulate the meaning. I think I understand how the original author was applying this, and it is nothing like what you are struggling to suggest, but to go further would be to get sucked deeper into this diversion.
My point is not that "some Muslims" have ridiculed Christianity; but that a particular Muslim, Muhammad, ridiculed all of the other religions around himself. Muhammad even went so far as to accuse the Jews of shirk! Criticising other religions is not the sole province of Islam. Only a hypocrite would dare to criticise a non-Muslim for criticising Islam.
What was "unprofessional" about what the student did was to speak openly about what Muslims believe. The student was merely reciting what "Allah" had transmitted to all of humanity.
What could be wrong with that? You don't seem to be bothered by the hypocrisy of misrepresenting your beliefs. I believe that my conversations with my Christian friends are built on honesty and respect. Someone who hides their beliefs is being dishonest and the conversations are disingenuous. If you feel you have to hide your beliefs (other than for you own safety) then there is something wrong with what you believe. I can't go to a Muslim country; it would be too dangerous for me. Is that something we can agree on?
I don't know much about John Hagee. When I hear someone making anti-Islamic comments, the question that matters to me is whether or not his opinions are backed by evidence or are founded in rumours. I see nothing wrong with someone wanting to burn a Qur'an IF THEY HAVE READ IT first. If they haven't read it; they have no reason to burn it.
You don't seem to want to address the very important question as why there is so much hatred of Muslims. You hide behind simplistic explanations which blame everyone else for a problem of Islam's own creation. Only when Muslims are willing to look in a mirror and see themselves as others see them, will they understand the full nature of the problem and will be able to adapt to the situation.
N-B:
You write : " Those are the words of someone who has heard something but doesn't understand what he has heard well enough to articulate the meaning. I think I understand how the original author was applying this, and it is nothing like what you are struggling to suggest, but to go further would be to get sucked deeper into this diversion."
If you choose not to hear what I am saying, that is your choice. Moreover, it is not a "diversion", rather, it is simply following up on questions/statements that YOU yourself have raised.
I will say this once again, there were cases when tribes and individuals would seek Wilaayah, a type of protection, with more powerful forces. The Qur'an says simply not to do that with those who have displayed hatred of you. It is common sense. Please don't pretend you don't understand that.
You mention a variety of things, but it seems to me in general that you have created a self-identity of confrontation. You argue on a Muslim's blog, you argue with Christian "friends", where does it stop?
" it is simply following up on questions/statements that YOU yourself have raised."
And yet you still avoid answering the simple question "who were the individuals or tribes seeking Wilaayah and who were the more powerful tribes"? I don't pretend to not understand whether you viewed the Jews and Christians at the time of this verse's revelation as a powerful tribe who would accept Muslims seeking Wilaayah or vice versa. Neither situation seems likely under the circumstances. Without an explanation, your excuse for this bigoted verse has no merit whatsoever.
Regardless, you have, once again, provided fodder for a Muslim ban in America. Americans should not offer protection to those who have displayed hatred of Americans. "It is common sense."
I have never had confrontations with Christians nor Jews over religion, nor argued with them, and many of my closest friends are Christians or Jews. True friendships are built on honesty and I would never mislead my friends about how I view religions. I had solid relationships with the Christian posters on whyislam.com. On the other hand, you cannot be honest with Christians and Jews nor any non-Muslims since it would inevitably lead to confrontation. The associations you have with non-Muslims is build on fraud.
I do not dispute your claim that I believe that Islam needs to be confronted. I feel no shame in identifying as someone who disputes that the political ideology of Islam can shelter itself behind a cloak of free religious expression. It is the politics of Islam that I attack as medieval and barbaric and not its religious basis. It is true that I also see the religious basis of Islam as an absurdity (that in a universe which is billions of years old with trillions of planets like the Earth, the Creator of this vast universe would provide an obscure book to a remote corner of our tiny planet and saying that mankind needs nothing more). It is unavoidable to bring religion of Islam into conversations about the political ideology since the politics is so deeply rooted in the absurdities of the religion.
Yes, indeed, "where does it [confrontation] stop"? Muhammad did not stop. There was no non-Muslim group that he did not confront. Why would you bother to worry if I "have created a self-identity of confrontation" when Muhammad, who is a far more important figure in your life than I am, has done the same thing?
Your hypocrisy seems to be unbounded.
Hello NB:
It is amazing to me the assertions that you make, about me as a person as well as on Islam as a faith. Frankly, I see your statements, if accurate (about ridiculing Christian faith to Christian friends) as being fraudulent.
You seem to have no respect for anyone, yet cry when someone says even the slightest objection to your odd viewpoints.
Post a Comment