The relationship between the Qur'an and the Bible

Video of discussion regarding the Bible and the Qur'an. Subjects include [A] Belief in revealed scriptures. [B] Reasoning behind the sending of numerous scriptures and messengers. [C] Qur'an vis a vis other texts. [D] Historicity of the Bible.

Link to the Podcast is below


[url]http://noorulislam.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-10-02T14_05_11-07_00[/url]

If unable to click, then copy/paste the site.

West/East dichotomy present in Cairo Hyatt controversy?

The recent decision by the owner of the Grand Hyatt hotel in Cairo, a hotel which enjoys five-star status, to cease immediately the sale of alcohol has infuriated many, the bogeyman of Saudi "radicalism" in an otherwise "moderate" Egyptian Muslim society has been invoked, seemingly by both Muslim and Non-Muslim commentators. What has been even more disturbing is that some of the responses to this decision has brought to light many of the illogical fallacies and outright racist and ethnocentric views that are held by many whenever it comes to Muslims, Islam, and specifically the desire to live in accordance to certain values of religious origin. Our prior article about Polygamy emphasized the hypocrisy of seizing children allegedly from Polygamous unions, while at the same time having no problems with the "hook-up" culture that leaves far more problems, social, emotional, STDS, burden on the American taxpayer's etc..

First, I should clarify that I have no problem with a Non-Muslim wanting to consume alcohol. This is their business. Many strands of Christian practice use Wine in their religious ceremonies to represent the blood of Christ, whom they believe died for mankind's sins. I am not in a position, especially in such a post as this, to address the legitimacy or lack of it with regards to their tradition. That is the job of their scholars and intellectuals. As a Muslims, I must remember what the Qur'an has taught in its own declaration of religious freedom when it has asserted that "There is no compulsion in religion..'' [Q 2:256]. Therefore, I cannot force my own religious choice on a reluctant population.

That being said, it should also be acknowledged that when in someone else's house, the wishes of the owner should be respected. If I ask my visitors to remove their shoes when they come to my house, then out of respect the visitors should. They should not even ask me for an explanation. They will do so because I have asked them to. The owner of the hotel, a Muslim, operating in a Muslim-majority nation, has decided to ban alcohol from his place of business. He chooses not to have that as part of his business. He should be commended for this action, as so many of us are driven by financial considerations alone, unwilling to act upon our better selves, the part of our soul that pushes us to what is right.


An example of the thinking pattern that I take very strong exception to is the following quote. I found it to be very racist and arrogant. I ask the reader if this makes sense to you:

"But critics say just as Muslims expect to be served Halal food on international flights, they should be prepared to respect the desires of their Western guests." [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7415495.stm]

I have been on international flights in the Muslim world many times, as well as in other regions. I have never asked for Halal meat. On flights in Muslim areas, it only makes sense that the airline would have available Halal meat, but to compare that to alcohol? Besides, if a Muslim does not wish to consume Non-Halal meat, he or she can easily eat fruits or seafood, etc.. that is available on the flight. Moreover, do "Western guests" consider Halal meats to be immoral? To be against their religious values? The Qur'an has clearly stated that alcohol is a distraction from spiritual pursuits, that it is harmful, and that it is actually a tool of Satan to bring forth inappropriate behavior [ Q 2:219, 5:90-91].

To compare Halal foods to alcohol is to also bring into question drugs such as crack cocaine, etc...! Should I serve my guests these simply because they may like it? Should I have such available in my home? It would be foolish for me to do this, because it is against my own values, the laws of my state and nation, and would bring many more problems to my doorstep. In other words, it is best for my own interests to keep these items at distance. That is exactly what the Cairo Hyatt has done.

The argument that it would harm the Egyptian tourist industry also seems illogical to me. Egypt is one big museum, with artifacts from many culture and civilizations. The reader already accepts this as an axiomatic truth. I need not provide evidence for this. Can not the tourist, if they really want alcohol, either wait for their trip to conclude or find their desired drink outside their hotel?

I wonder aloud here, in this brief post, if the Egyptians cited in the BBC article as having concerns about this recent move by the Cairo Hyatt have internalized a view that their values, influenced by Islam, are antiquated and useless, while those of fun-loving tourists are "civilized" and "modern"? I also wonder if the Non-Muslims on the international scene see themselves as the ultimate judges of what is right and wrong, if they have adopted, knowingly or otherwise, a paternalistic attitude towards the "third world"?

In any case, what has been shown is that even in business, there has to be morals, ethics, and standing for one's conscious, even if it hurts politically or financially. This does not naturally equate confrontation or conflict, but nonetheless it is my honest view that the owner, Sheikh 'Abdul 'Aziz Ibrahim bin Ibrahim, should be congratulated by all people of conscious, Muslim and non-Muslim. He should be seen as an example of standing up for what is right and true.
I also recommend reading this perspective http://modernmuslimwoman.com/2008/05/cairo-hyatt-no-longer-sells-alcoholthis.html

Polygamy and Societal norms

The nation and perhaps the entire world have been paying attention to the recent raid on a compound belonging to the Fundamentalist Church of Latter day Saints [FLDS] in El Dolado, Texas. It has been said that sexual abuse of children, forced marriages and assault was taking place on the property.

As the days continue to unfold, so do the details of the circumstances surrounding the initial investigation, the raid on FLDS property and the subsequent action of taking hundreds of children into state custody, the accusations continue to fly. One which sticks out in my mind is that children were "indoctrinated" to accept marriage. For more, see the following link, [url] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080418/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat[/url].

Do not all parents "indoctrinate" their children? I found the wording of that very arrogant and condescending. In any case, it has now been said that the initial investigation was the result of a prank, a bad joke, on the part of a FLDS detractor [ see [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042303551.html?hpid=sec-religion[/url]]

Nonetheless, the beliefs, dress, and moral code of the followers of this Mormon breakaway faction are very odd to mainstream American culture, the most striking is their practice of polygamous marriage. Those who enter into polygamy have traditionally been seen as sexual deviants, acting contrary to Biblical norms. In the days of early Mormonism, polygamy, better described as Polygany, was seen as a command from God. Persecution from both society as well as the government forced the movement to abandon it in 1890 [see [url]http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_poly.htm[/url]]. This was not universally accepted among Mormons, leading to schisms, the FDLS being just one of many such examples.

In any case, I find it very strange that while Homosexuality is acceptable and legal, persons with multiple sexual partners [married or otherwise] cannot face any legal consequences for their actions or lifestyle choice, individuals seeking marriage, of their own free will, are roundly condemned and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

We venture to call this Evident Hypocrisy! We are asking here, why the hypocrisy? Please explain why polygamy is wrong, and yet homosexuality is not? Why is polygamy immoral and contrary to state law, when plural relationships, usually without marriage, or simply "playing the field" are acceptable, without fear of government interference?

Sometimes it is asserted that Polygamous relationships place an unfair burden on state and national resources.However, would not any other relationship, with its consequent children, also place the same burdens? It seems to me that such reasoning is untenable, an excuse to simply attack what is different, something which presents a totally different set of values and morals, in many cases exposing our own inadequacies as a nation and society.



Polygamy in Islam


In Pre-Islamic Arabia, a variety of marriages and relationships were seen as acceptable, including polygamy. However, an unlimited polygamy was practiced. The Qur'an limits the number of wives a man is allowed to take to four, and what is most interesting about this is that the Qur'an itself links polygamy to social welfare.

And if you are fearful that you cannot be just with orphans, then marry women of your choice, two, three or four. And if you fear the inability to be just [again], then one woman ..that is the most suitable in preventing you from being unjust.

[Qur'an 4:3]


The Muslim community, under the leadership of Muhammad ,were under much pressure, as men had been falling in battle, leaving behind widows and children with no means of support. This was a solution to several problems,but the main one addressed is that of social welfare. Any religion that does not give guidance for practical situations of like nature does not deserve much attention. In the above cited Quranic text, it appears that it is suggested that instead of guardians being appointed to manage the inheritance [if any] of the family, the guardian himself, or someone willing to take on this role, should unite with that family, take on the responsibilities and struggles together, as a means of overcoming pressure, but also to build a cohesive family, a large body that will be there for mutual support financially, spiritually, and so forth.


This has little to do with sexual adventure. The Qur'an is presenting an alternative family system, with limitations of course. It should also be noted that rulers and leaders often took on wives from other nations/tribes/families etc.. as a means to build traditional relationships and solidify alliances. This is apparent in the figure of Solomon, whom the Bible says had as many as 700 wives[ 1 Kings 11:3]. The Prophet Muhammad himself had similar reasons in mind, as we see that he also married several widows.



Conclusion


Polygamy is not for everyone, indeed it is not recommended for those financially or emotionally incapable of handling such responsibilities. In any case, as an institution it does not deserve the sort of bad press it has received and continues to receive.

If it is to be practiced, it should be for the correct motivations, and not simply for "adventure". Marriage, whether in polygamy or not, should never be rushed into. We suggest following the advice of Muhammad himself, which is to pray [salaat al -Istikhaarah] and then seek advice from people [Ft.1]
.

This was by no means a comprehensive look at Polygamy, but nonetheless we pray that this has caused you to at least consider the choice of others and not look at it with contempt. I am also interested in the views of those who have experience in polygamy, from any religion, in order to have a productive and meaningful discussion.


Footnotes

[#1] Al Qahtaani, Sa'eed, Fortification of the Muslim through remembrance and supplication from the Qur'aan and Sunnah, pp. 105-108 [Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Dar al Khair, 1996 edition]