Does Islam make sense?

[Matthew_Light]

Would we ever see a Muslim cleric making a public apology for the wrongful actions of Muslims the way the Pope has done? I won’t be holding my breath.

The Pope is the leader of all Christendom, according to Catholic teaching.

There is no equivalent in Islam, which is radically decentralized.

However, many Muslim clerics have spoken out about violence and terrorism:

Here is just one page containing Islamic condemnations of the 9/11 attacks, for example:

kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/

 

[dronald]

The Pope is the leader of all Christendom, according to Catholic teaching.

There is no equivalent in Islam, which is radically decentralized.

However, many Muslim clerics have spoken out about violence and terrorism:

Here is just one page containing Islamic condemnations of the 9/11 attacks, for example:

kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/

Interestingly enough Islam is much like Protestantism (and perhaps Orthodoxy) in that not everyone agrees with everyone else about everything.

What’s odd though about non-Catholic Christian denominations is the lack of suicide bombing, militias fighting for the cause of God, people quoting Scripture as an excuse to subjugate women and people of other Religions.

It’s true that it’s hard to compare today’s Catholicism with today’s Islam but we can certainly compare it to the Protestant sects. And let’s face it, as a whole non-Catholic Christians are miles ahead of Muslims because of the text of their Holy book.

Surah 9:29 is open to interpretation, and it ain’t always pretty. The same does not happen in Christian denominations because there is no Surah 9:29 in our New Testament.

 

[daler]

God bless, daler. I think we are in agreement on most points. There is still much about the Bahais for me to learn.

Just a slight disagreement on the above point. I think variantions, etc are not allowed at all in the Quran. As a Muslim, you conform to the Quran, not the Quran conforming to you. So, you learn the Arabic of the 7th century so that you can understand the Quran, not re-write the Quran to suit your nuances of language. Whatever God have spoken, no man may change.

You can find a few examples of the differences in the Sanna manuscripts here. As you can see, the differences are rather minor but it make all the difference. A Muslim’s response to the Sanaa manuscripts do not say much here, but note that the scholars understanding of the history of the Quran is at odds with that of the umat, who believes that the Quran came down unchanged from heaven.

Jim,
. I think I may not have communicated properly what I intended. As far as my limited knowledge goes, my understanding is that early on, the standards were “fixed” as you say, in order to have a single, unified Book which would not be subject to changes due to various meanings across distances. It was to overcome such things that written Arabic was standardized, at least as far as in the Quran.

. The problem that exists today is largely in the realm of interpretation. Anyone who achieves a certain rank seems able to expound from their position what this or that verse means, and even further, pronounce judgement against people according to their seats of authority, often with manifest injustice and disregard for reason, compassion, and common sense.

 

[jimkhong]

The Pope is the leader of all Christendom, according to Catholic teaching.

There is no equivalent in Islam, which is radically decentralized.

However, many Muslim clerics have spoken out about violence and terrorism:

Here is just one page containing Islamic condemnations of the 9/11 attacks, for example:

kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/

(Reading the link you provided and many other statements of Muslim leaders on 911) Like I say, broad statements about Muslim beliefs about warfare, etc. The few references to OBL really only states that OBL do not represents Islam, which is likely more aimed at their own flocks not to follow OBL. There is no personal condemnation of OBL that they do not any longer consider OBL a Muslim, who is aiming for the same paradise as they are. I understand the need not to judge a person but these Muslim leaders only distanced themselves and their flock from OBL, but not a positive condemndation of him. Like I said, I only remember one Muslim cleric who did so and it stood out as all the others were only distancing themselves or trying to protect Islam as a whole or their flock in particular from the Islamophobia they know that is to come.

I can’t remember the name of the Egyptian cleric but he did stand up for what is right, not just what is expedient for Islam, and condemned OBL directly (I can’t remember whether he used the word kafir or not but it was definitely close to it) in the same way a Christian leader (not necessarily the Pope) will excommunicate a Christian who flagrantly opposed Christ injunctions. Somehow, when someone waves the flag in defense of Islam, it is difficult for Muslim leaders to attack him in fear of being seen to attack Islam. How many Muslim judges have the courage to acquit a Pakistani Christian accused of blasphemy in the midst of a land dispute which likely gave rise to the accusation in the first place?

The default Muslim mindset (there are always exception of course) is rather tribal in that the instinctive action is the defense of Islam, taking prioirity over doing what is right. Muslims are quick to condemn Israeli occupation of Palestine but are silent on worse pogroms elsewhere (don’t hear much from Muslims during the Rwandan massacre) or when Muslims are the culprits (where are the Muslim voices when the Sudanese government attacked black Sudaneses?). My one memory of the Bosnian war was English people (Christian and non-religious alike) running food trucks from UK to beseiged Muslims in Bosnia. Would Muslims out of personal considerations run food trucks to help Christians in Syria being attacked by Muslims (other than those who do so out of geo-political considerations?) There are exception of course, but how many Muslims are able to overcome their tribal instinct and act on the basis of what is the universal truth and what humanity holds to be right rather than the narrow interests of Islam?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Interestingly enough Islam is much like Protestantism (and perhaps Orthodoxy) in that not everyone agrees with everyone else about everything.

What’s odd though about non-Catholic Christian denominations is the lack of suicide bombing, militias fighting for the cause of God, people quoting Scripture as an excuse to subjugate women and people of other Religions.

It’s true that it’s hard to compare today’s Catholicism with today’s Islam but we can certainly compare it to the Protestant sects. And let’s face it, as a whole non-Catholic Christians are miles ahead of Muslims because of the text of their Holy book.

Surah 9:29 is open to interpretation, and it ain’t always pretty. The same does not happen in Christian denominations because there is no Surah 9:29 in our New Testament.

For the lack of a similar sized portion of extremist Christians in Protestantism I would argue (in addition to the errors in theology you mention) it doesn’t exist due to-
-the way Christianity addresses worldly concerns (Islam seems to treat religious and worldly concerns as equal while Christianity treats worldly concerns as a secondary issue due to it being shaped by the primary religious concern)
-the impact of the central authority (the Church) and long shared history on the development of various Protestant theology (there seems to be a link between extremist views and the distance away from the common shared history rooted in the Church)
-Christian theology and the psychological and social impact of it. Christianity makes one self reflective about one’s actions- a sort of universally shared “Catholic guilt” thing.

 

[Matthew_Light]

The default Muslim mindset (there are always exception of course) is rather tribal in that the instinctive action is the defense of Islam, taking prioirity over doing what is right.

I’m certainly not going to hold up the Islamic world as some kind of leaders of spiritual, moral and social progress today, unlike the situation in the first few centuries after Muhammad. Just look at how Baha’is are treated throughout the Middle East. No right to work or study in a university, Baha’is murdered with impunity in some countries, Baha’i holy places desecrated, even Baha’i cemeteries bulldozed.

Islam definitely needs to go through its own version of the Enlightenment so the worst aspects of Islamic culture can be purged, as the worst aspects of Christian culture were a couple centuries ago.

 

[jimkhong]

I’m certainly not going to hold up the Islamic world as some kind of leaders of spiritual, moral and social progress today, unlike the situation in the first few centuries after Muhammad. Just look at how Baha’is are treated throughout the Middle East. No right to work or study in a university, Baha’is murdered with impunity in some countries, Baha’i holy places desecrated, even Baha’i cemeteries bulldozed.

Islam definitely needs to go through its own version of the Enlightenment so the worst aspects of Islamic culture can be purged, as the worst aspects of Christian culture were a couple centuries ago.

Islam went through its Enlightenment and then went downhill from there. If Bahai has emerged in Europe five centuries earlier, you would have been persecuted as well. On the other hand if you had emerged under the times of, say, Akhbar the third of the Mogul emperors, you would have been treated very well under a Muslim emperor. Somehow, Islam lost its way after its Age of Enlightenment.

 

[daler]

Islam went through its Enlightenment and then went downhill from there. If Bahai has emerged in Europe five centuries earlier, you would have been persecuted as well. On the other hand if you had emerged under the times of, say, Akhbar the third of the Mogul emperors, you would have been treated very well under a Muslim emperor. Somehow, Islam lost its way after its Age of Enlightenment.

Jim,

. There is a pattern of the rise and fall of civilizations which follows the appearance of certain “culture heroes”, as one anthropologist put it. For example, Quetzalcoatl of the Toltecs had far reaching effects well beyond the borders of Central America, yet after some centuries passed, corruption set in and was most apparent in the priestly classes of most of the tribes, according to his research. (I am referring to Vinson Brown.)

. This pattern is universal, as human potential, which is latent, is like a seed waiting to germinate when conditions are right. So when a God-sent Prophet appears as a spiritual sun on the horizon of human affairs, the Light He brings has an effect upon us. People are either attracted or repelled by the Light.

. Even as there are seasons in the natural cycles of time, or the appearance and disappearance of the sun each day, the Messengers, when They come, shine upon the earth of men’s hearts, causing blossoms and fruit to appear. Then there is silence - an interim between Messengers, before the Cycle is renewed.

. One of the signs of the coming of a new Messenger of God is the decline of civilization to the point of spiritual decadence. This decay is as natural, in one sense, as that of a fallen tree in the forest, being eaten by termites. They come to do their job in the darkness of the night of His absence.

. Against the backdrop of this decline is the emergence of a new Cycle, which has an effect upon mankind, not only directly, but indirectly, even as the sun which sheds its light through the clouds, or beyond mountain peaks. The magnitude of the sun may not be noticed, but it is there nonetheless, warming the atmosphere and causing the rains to come.

. An evidence that the sun has in fact already risen is apparent in the abundance of spring, the onrushing waters occurring after the snow melts, the seasonal tide telling of great changes. We are in the midst of such an upsurge, and have been for well over a century and a half. One must ask if this is mere coincidence, that men just “happen” to be so inspired as to create entirely new forms of art and industry, science and invention, or is their a Cause to be attributed to this upsurge.

. Following the appearance of Muhammad, the arts, sciences, and literature of the world more than quadrupled. The influence was so great that even Europe ascended from the dark ages when its people came in contact with the followers of Islam, the study at its Universities, the magnificence of its cities. But as you say, there set in a stagnation which has not rebounded.

. What then, has caused this rebound elsewhere to occur? Look at the nation of Israel. It has returned to the land of its birth, thriving on barren soil, the prodigal son gone home. To what may this be attributed if not the promised return of the Lord of Hosts? Another coincidence?

. And what has been the cause of the Christian enlightenment, to finally cease its wars between the nations, the abandonment of slavery, the promotion of the equality of men and women, the movement towards universal education, the progress of societal reforms? Did this as well just “happen” in the relatively recent past without a Cause?

. Some things to ponder…

. May God bless us all, regardless of race, religion, nation, or class
.

 

[jimkhong]

Jim,

. There is a pattern of the rise and fall of civilizations which follows the appearance of certain “culture heroes”, as one anthropologist put it. For example, Quetzalcoatl of the Toltecs had far reaching effects well beyond the borders of Central America, yet after some centuries passed, corruption set in and was most apparent in the priestly classes of most of the tribes, according to his research. (I am referring to Vinson Brown.)
.

Thanks daler; that has been a good point and it is value for reflections.

The question is how much of the Englightenment that accompanied certain Islamic civilisation is Islamic in origin. I only identify two such civilisations:

Abbasid caliphate - I think the preservation of science etc under the Abbasid has been well-documented. At a religious level, there has been much made of the religious tolerance of the Caliphs and while I would like to see non-Muslim accounts of this, I do not doubt that tolerance there was well in advance of Europe at that time (at the risk of looking through lenses of the very different values of modern democratic practices, there is the question of how much rights minorities have). At the social level, how much of the acceptance of the rule of the Caliphate stems from the relative peace that their conquests have imposed - is it part of the social contract of that age that acceptance of a peace from the fractious wars of centuries that just past, in exchange for strictures of the political regime, including strictures of Islamic law. Is this acceptance/viability/longetivity of this social contract that led of the freedom of learning, trade, etc required by an Enlightenment rather than islamic values itself.

Moguls - this is really during the reign of Akhbar himself which raises the question whether the love of learning and tolerance of the person of Akhbar was instrumental in these policies as opposed to the Islam that he espoused. (In fact, he did tried to to initiate a new religion which - correct me if I am wrong - seem to have similar basis as Bahai) Outside of Akhbar, I am not sure how much tolerance and love of learning was exhbiited by the successor emperors.

I know I am writing with the highsight and the perspective of modern Christian-Western led civilisation (I view Christian and secular Western thought as part of the same continuum as much of secular values that we have today in democracy stem from Christian roots). I could be well coloured by my prejudices but it would seem to me that the present trajectory we have today is part of the inevitable development of increased education, social awareness and economic wellbeing that have progressed in the last few centuries (arising from Christian values and consioussness) and, barring a few hiccups here and there, will continue in the future provided education, social awareness and economic wellbeing do not collapse. Of course, I may be wrong and the future is one of subjugation of personal thoughts by Muslim clerics .

 

[daler]

Thanks daler; that has been a good point and it is value for reflections.

The question is how much of the Englightenment that accompanied certain Islamic civilisation is Islamic in origin. I only identify two such civilisations…

Jim,

. Thank you for the informative dialogue. A couple of things come to mind. If we can set aside for a moment the idea of “Islamic in origin”, and specifically try to look deeper into the totality of the ice burg, for what is hidden beneath the surface, and what only appears to us as different religious systems separated by time and geography, as the visible portions, or peaks above the waterline, then perhaps with this view in mind we may see the correlation between these “different” systems as part of a single whole.

. The “apparent” differences are quite obvious, particularly as one advances through the chronology of the unfoldment of these systems under the guidance of the later Prophets, for the supposed followers of the previous religious orders all stop with their preferred and final Prophet, i.e. Moses to the Jews, Jesus to the Christians, Muhammad as the “Seal” of the Prophets to the Muslims, etc…

. If this process of “Enlightenment”, as we call it, were to fully develop, unhindered by the ambitious leaders who create schisms for their own earthly gain, we would have long ago been living in paradise, would we not?

. The reality being that people are people, and part of being a person is to face spiritual tests, we are hindered by our own selves from achieving the vision granted to us by all of the Prophets God sends us. We stand between Them and ourselves, at multiple levels, both as individuals and collective societies. Thus, the strength of a cable is reduced to single strands, or a few multiple strands from time to time.

. Humanity soars upon these multiple strands not because of Jewish, Christian, or Islamic “origins”, per se, but because it rests upon the foundation beneath the waves of observable phenomenon. Whenever the secure foundation is rested upon, progress tends to be exponential. Whenever this covenant is broken, we separate ourselves from “It”, and drift aimlessly off to sea, melting in the inevitable sunlight of God’s immutable decree.

. The Abbasid triumph over the perverse and corrupt Ummayyads was a victory, however temporary, established by the recognition of the humanity of people of diverse racial and cultural backgrounds, who were accepted, as I understand it, as equal Muslims, neither inferior to, nor superior to, other Muslims. This light (enlightenment) was cast against the shadows of evil, yet as it did not fully root itself to the original intention of the Prophet’s appointment of Ali as the Successor, it, too, drifted away from the Source and melted away.

. Most unfortunately, we all cling to ice burgs of tradition and institutional hierarchies which all claim to be “the one!” resting upon the original foundation. The trump card, however, is always in the Hand of God. “He doeth what He willeth”, and when he melts the burg, those clinging to it, whichever one it is, go with it. It is thus that religion is renewed from age to age, both out of sheer necessity because of the very nature of man, and because it appears to be God’s method, in the past as well as the present.

. It is then for us to be always vigilant, and to be on constant “Watch”, as the Lord commanded, lest in our complacency, we are found napping, however sure we are of our restful spiritual posture upon the burgs of tradition and orthodoxy, saying: Surely “they” knew what they were talking about, and I know what they said, and therefore I deserve this pillow upon which I rest my head for eternity…

.

 

[daler]

1. It seems that Muhammad’s coming…

Note: I’m not sure specifically this should post, but ran across it today in another forum and thought it would be worthy to share.

The Oath of the Prophet to the Followers of the Nazarene
by Muhammad and Ali ibn 'Abu-Talib
translated by Anton Haddad.
New York: Board of Counsel, 1902

As an evidence of the injustice and intolerance which has characterized the attitude of Christians toward the great prophet Muhammad, and to prove how unfortunate is their error in attributing hatred and cruelty to him in his dealings with the followers of the Nazarene, I wish, for the sake of truth and Christian enlightenment, to quote Muhammad’s words, his valid oath and covenant, concerning them.

This oath, entrusted by Muhammad to his Caliphs, is an expression of his authoritative command to them as to their attitude toward the followers of Christ throughout the whole world. The oath referred to was issued by the prophet Muhammad to the Christian Monks of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai. A copy of it was translated into Turkish, while the original is still preserved in the treasury of the Sultan in Constantinople. This same Turkish copy was translated into Arabic by Naufal Effendi Naufal, a Christian of Tripoli, Syria; which translation is recorded in a book written by him and known as Sunnajat-ut-tarab. The oath is as follows:

. "This is a letter which was issued by Muhammad, Ibn Abdullah, the Messenger, the Prophet, the faithful, who is sent to all the people as a trust on the part of God to all His creatures, that they may have no plea against God hereafter. --Verily God is the Mighty, the Wise. This letter is directed to the embracers of Islam, as a Covenant given to the followers of Nazarene in the East and West, the far and the near, the Arabs and foreigners, the known and the unknown

. "This letter contains the oath given unto them, an he who disobeys that which is therein, will considered a disobeyor and a transgressor to that whereunto he is commanded. He will be regarded as one who has corrupted the oath of God, disbelieved His Testament, rejected His Authority, despised His Religion, and made himself deserving of His Curse, whether he is Sultan or any other believer of Islam.

. "Whenever monks, devotees and pilgrims gather together, whether in mountain or valley, or den, or frequented place, or plain, or church, or in houses of worship, Verily we are back of them and shall protect them, and their properties and their morals, by Myself, by My friends and by My assistants, for they are of My subjects and under My protection.

. "I shall exempt them from that which may disturb them; of the burdens which are paid by others as an oath of allegiance. They must not give anything of their income but that which pleases them —they must not be offended or disturbed or coerced or compelled. Their judges should not be changed or prevented from accomplishing their offices, nor the monks disturbed in exercising their religious order, or the people of seclusion be stopped from dwelling in their cells.

. "No one is allowed to plunder their pilgrims, or destroy or spoil any of their churches, or houses of worship, or take any of the things contained within these houses and bring it to the houses of Islam. And he who takes away anything therefrom, will be one who has corrupted the oath of God, and, in truth, disobeyed His messenger.

. "Poll-taxes should not be put upon their judges, monks, and those whose occupation is the worship of God; nor is any other thing to be taken from them, whether it be a fine, a tax or any unjust right. Verily I shall keep their compact, wherever they may be, in the sea or on the land, in the East or West, in the North or South, for they are under My protection and the testament of My safety, against all things which they abhor.

. "No taxes or tithes should be received from those who devote themselves to the worship of God in the mountains, or from those who cultivate the Holy Lands. No one has the right to interfere with their affairs, or bring any action against them —Verily this is for aught else and not for them; rather, in the seasons of crops, they should be given a Kadah for each Ardab of wheat (about five bushels and a half) as provision for them, and no one has the right to say to them this is too much, or ask them to pay any tax.

. "As to those who possess properties, the wealthy and merchants, the poll-tax to be taken from them must not exceed twelve Dirhams a head per year (i. e. about 45 cents).

. "They shall not be imposed upon by any one to undertake a journey, or to be forced to go to wars or to carry arms; for the Islams have to fight for them. Do not dispute or argue with them, but deal according to the verse in the Koran, to wit: ‘Do not dispute or argue with the people of the Book but in that which is best.’ Thus they will live favored and protected from everything which may offend them by the Callers to religion (Islam), wherever they may be and in any place they may dwell.

. "Should any Christian woman be married to a Musluman, such marriage must not take place except after her consent, and she must not be prevented from going to her church for prayer. Their churches must be honored and they must not be withheld from building churches or repairing convents.

. “They must not be forced to carry arms or stones; but the Islams must protect them and defend them against others. It is positively incumbent upon every one of the Islam nation not to contradict or disobey this oath until the Day of Resurrection and the end of the world.”

continued (brief end)
.

 

[daler]

continued (brief end)
.

. . This is the oath which Muhammad Ibn Abdullah gave to the Christian nation, the fulfillment and promulgation of which has been agreed upon by all the witnesses who have hitherto attached their names. It was signed by the great Assistants of Muhammad, as follows:

Ali Ibn Abi Talib
Abvou Bekr Ibu Kahafat
Omar Ibn El-Khattah
Ottman Ibn Affan
Aboul Darda
Abou Harirat
Abdullah Ibn Masood
Abbas Ibn Abdoul Mottaleb
El-Fadhl Ibn Abbas
Ezzobier Ibn El-Awam
Talhat Ibn Abdullah
Said Ibn Maath
Said Ibn Abada
Thabit Ibn Nafess
Zied Ibn Thabit
Abou Hanifa Ibn Attaba
Hashim Ibn Obied
Maazam Ibn Kariesh
El-Harith Ibn Thabit
Abdoul Azim Ibn Haasan
Abdullah Ibn Omar Ibn El-Aas
Aamir Ibn Yasir
This oath was written by the hand of Ali Ibn Abi Talib
in the worship place of the Prophet on the third
day of Muharram in the second year of El-Hajrih.
.