Interfaith diablog with Muslims

[SirStephen]

Peace of Cake,

PART I

Earlier in this string you questioned whether I even ever read Shari’a. The question is, have you! In your comment to Trebor 135, you stated that Islam recognizes Christianity as a monotheistic religion: “Since the Quran refers to Christians as monotheists”. This is far from clear. In fact, it is most probable that it is wrong. In fact, in Qur’an Verse 5:73, Allah revealed his understanding of the Trinity and he condemned it outright as blasphemy. The blasphemy in question was precisely the “one of three quality” of the Trinity:

• They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word of blasphemy, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (Qur’an 5:73)

Surah 5, Chapter 5 is the last Surah in the Qur’an (chronologically) to speak to the relationship of Muslims to non-Muslims. Hence, Allah’s comment, as directly revealed above, is the final word and hence the ultimate position of Islam. It should be noted however, that when Islam initiates the “Dawah mission” to the Christian community and leadership, they are permitted, for the purpose of bringing them over, to mitigate that view in order to establish the “common word” that will be used to bring them over. Of concern to Allah toward the end of the Qur’an, it seems is the status Christians and Jews. In fact, surrounding Qur’an Verse 5:73 are two other direct revelations that make it clear the Allah categorically rejects Christianity. More on this later!

You may be of a mind to point out competing Verses of the Qur’an that make this far from clear. The problem is – it is clear because it is the final word. Hence, it is true in verses like 2:62, the Qur’an took a very inclusive view of other religions:

• Those who believe in the Qur’an, and those who follow the Jewish scriptures, and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (Qur’an 2:62)

And yes, it is generous. Those that commonly undertake outreach with the Christian community, including the USCCB, will use this verse to demonstrate openness. Later in the period of revelation (when Allah revealed his Message to Muhammad), Allah stated:

• If anyone desires a religion other than Islam submission to Allah, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost All spiritual good. (Qur’an 3:85)

Explaining the mechanics of how Verse 2:62 was abrogated by Verse 3:85, ibn Kathir was simply affirming that the later verse abrogated the former (chronologically)! From the Shafi’te book of Islamic law referenced earlier in the string, to emphasize the doctrinal basis of 3:85 overruling earlier more tolerant Qur’anic verses, it relies on Sahih hadith from Muhammad when he said:

• al-Misri, Book W, at § w4.3. “By him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any person of this Community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears of me and dies without believing in what I have been sent with will be an inhabitant of hell.” This is a rigorously authenticated (sahih) hadith that was recorded by Muslim (Sharh al-sunna)

Please note in confirming the status of Verse of 3:85, that 3 authoritative sources were used to confirm it: 1) Ibn Kathir, 2) Sahih hadith and 3) Shafi’te Islamic law that cited both of the examples I provided to assert the abrogating status of Verse 3:85. Anticipating later revelations, Verse 3:110 notes the People of the Books’ loss of faith for their perverse transgressions:

• Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors. (Qur’an 3:110)

 

[SirStephen]

PART II

Of course as the Tafsir alluded to earlier in Ibn Kathir’s explanation of Verse 9:29, the People of the Book who had faith became Muslim. Being a people mislead away from the truth, Allah goes on to promise that they will always defeat them in battle because they are cowards:

• They will do you no harm, barring a trifling annoyance; if they come out to fight you, they will show you their backs, and no help shall they get. (Qur’an 3:111)

Regarding Verse 3:111, Tafsir Ibn Kathir introduces his explanation of the verse with the header “The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book.” Ibn Kathir goes on to explain that “while delivering the good news to His believing servants that victory and dominance will be theirs against the disbelieving atheistic People of the Scripture, Allah then said” (recites Qur’an Verse 3:111) Later on in Ibn Kathir’s treatment of Verse 3:111, Ibn Kathir explains that “Allah has placed humiliation and disgrace on them wherever they may be, and they will never be safe-” unless, of course they “make them(selves) subservient to Islamic Law.” (page 243)

So now we are back to Surah 5, the last to speak of Muslim relations with non-Muslims. Before restating Verse 5:73 in its proper milieu, it should be noted that leading up to Allah’s taking direct exception to Christianity, he tells Muslims that they cannot be friends with Christians and Jews and whoever does, will be “of them.”

• O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. (Qur’an 5:51)

It is in this context that I would like to present Allah’s final word on Christianity – a mandate that CANNOT be abrogated:

• They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the son of Mary.” But said Christ: “O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. (Qur’an 5:72)

• They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word of blasphemy, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (Qur’an 5:73)

• Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their daily food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (Qur’an 5:75)

As I am reasonably sure that there is no mistake in the citations made, nor with their status in Islamic law, I am also reasonably sure that you will not disprove what was stated here and also reasonably certain that you have no capacity to counter what was stated based on any notions of Islamic law that is broadly recognized as such in the Sunni community. The only exception being that Islam is allowed to introduce Islam to non-Muslim communities in phases and hence will emphasize the Meccan and very early Medinan stages until the situation ripens to move to the more contentious phases of Medinan phase. And you can bet the house on that.

God Bless!

SirStephen

 

[Peace_of_cake]

…

Geez man! Why not just give the references and I’d look them up! No one’s going to trall through this. I haven’t even had time to properly read your second three parter, but one thing sprang to mind? Why is solar scriptura heretical when concerning Christianity, but fine when concerning Islam? You have highlighted the double standards Muslims and Christians often use when encountering each other why there is a need for this diablog.

Just sticking with the law bit for now…
Anyone can put all the English translations together - In fact you have missed a couple and I’d have thought Mawardi’s Ahkam Al-Sultaniyyah pretty important given the point your trying to make, wouldn’t you? - but studying is something very different!
Many seem to cast off Medieval Canon Law as ‘transient’ basically denying its importance and pandering to modern norms, which is dangerous given it was so integral to the hayday of Catholicism wouldn’t you say? It basically means the Church was spouting error for a millenia ish… Think thats more of a diservice! And then why can’t Muslims do the same thing; you’ve only quoted 11th ish Century texts. If you say they cant because the Qur’an is the Speech of God then you don’t know the difference between fiqh and Shariah! Just like Canon law, fiqh is a human endeavour to understand the Divine Law so in this sense it is transient.
I can’t comment on everything you’ve mentioned as I just don’t have the time, but my initial point still holds: history has shown Muslim lands have been pluralistic.
Lets take ibn Kathir you’ve quoted. Why didn’t you quote the commentary on 2:256? As you say its the Speech of God and so cant be ignored! And t is more relevant as the verses you are are talking about are the Mekkan Mushrikun.
No Compulsion in Religion
Allah said,
﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ﴾
(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.’’
It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn Abbas said ﴿that before Islam﴾, "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated ﴿from Al-Madinah﴾, some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, We will not abandon our children.’ Allah revealed,
﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ﴾
(There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.)’’
How do you marry those up exactly? Basically you’ve missed a great deal
In Al Hidayah why didn’t you go onto the next section on page 291?
If they commence payment then they have the same rights as Muslims and they have the same liabilities like those of the Muslims…So how is it that they are forced to convert exactly? Also why didn’t you see at the top it says ‘When the Muslims commence battle’ It is a war already!?! If the Ahul Kitab accept Islam or pay the jizya then it means they’ve become allies part of the state ie no longer a threat so stop fighting!
There is still not one law in Shariah that states forced conversion as you’ve shown! You haven’t even read them properly!

 

[Peace_of_cake]

The myth that Islam is spred by the sword is totally refuted by any credible historian. Why was it 500 years for the Muslim population in Egypt to outnumber the non Muslim population? Forced conversions? Or simply political expansion of state borders and then people chose to convert over time.
I suggest you read two books: The end of the jihad state and Tolerance and coersion in Islam. Academic and objective with warts and all… but not grossly misrepresentative!
There is so much that needs to be said, but what if I did this:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. [Matt 10:34]
St Paul says about the heretic: “You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh” (I Cor 5:5)
St Aquinas says:Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death… Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.” (ST II:II 11:3 corpus)
Cum ex Officii Nostri Pope Innocent III says in Cum ex We decree aOfficii Nostri: a perpetual law, that whatsoever heretic … shall be found therein, shall immediately be taken and delivered to the secular court to be punished according to the law. Since he was referring to the Roman Law of Lese Majeste then he meant for burning as Fredrick II clearly understood and did as did all Europe!
History clealry shows that there was no tolerance in medieval Europe where the Pontificate was absolute monarch.
Now clearly I have just done what you’ve done (a little hastely), so either the Church is intolerant at its core - these quotes are the gold standard texts afterall - or you’re wrong because you dont have a deep enough knowledge on the subject!
Yes the spectrum of Islamic jurisprudence is not all chocolates and roses, but its definately not madness and if we try and say it is then we are derriding our own majesterium.
If you wish to respond please do so in once short post because no one has time to do otherwise. Thank-you

 

[SirStephen]

Piece of Cake,

I did not randomly pick the string of Verses, I used the ones that are recognized for the positions asserted. Yes, any fool can string some verses along just like in law, any fool can string cite a series of cases in a legal brief. But it becomes clear who is faking it and who’s not very quickly. For the points I made, I used citations that make that point and are understood to do so. Also, if representing a murder suspect in Kansas, I do my research based on the laws of Missouri and argue the case along those lines, I would be guilty of malpractice. This goes to your point:

“Why is solar scriptura heretical when concerning Christianity, but fine when concerning Islam?”

The question is completely irrelevant. Islam is what Islam says it is according to its doctrinal canons. You seek to impose a Christian hermeneutic on an non-Christian religion - one that in fact categorically defines itself in the first order in terms of law (not theology). This point is made clear in the saying, in almost every book about Islam written my Muslims that “Islam is not just a religion but a complete way of life governed by Islamic law which comes from Allah who is alone sovereign.” Note that even in this phrase, the law takes precedence. You cannot approach Islam as if it were a one-off of Christianity. As an appellate court would say, you have to start de novo. I am making the legal analogy on purpose. Because Islam insists that it is governed by Islamic law that it insists is the law of the land, you are under some requirement to read it that way and apply its doctrines and rules of construction accordingly. In the government space, the equivalent problem is that they want to read Islamic law as if it were the putty of political science.

If you’re serious about discussing Islamic law, you have to orient on the Islam that exists.

Of course, the same Verse 3:85 that abrogated Verse 2:60 also abrogated 2:256. In fairness, that rule is still given status. You will not be compelled to convert to Islam (the religion), so long as you agree to submit to being governed by Islamic law. But, this rule, in theory does not apply to “pagans” – as the Verse 9:5 rule applies - just look at the animists in Sudan - but better do it quick before they’re all dead. If you are ever interested, I can get you some gruesome history of Islamic conquest of India. And it is very bloody! In fact, a book came out that oversaw the largest translation of Indian texts a few years back.

On non-conversion by force, your point is quite misleading. While Islam wants everyone to convert to Islam, Islam demands that they all be governed by it. The “Golden Ages of Islam” were almost always associated with a Muslim ruling class that governed a large “dhimmi” class that ran the economy … Collapse of those societies can almost always be shown to align with the collapse of the dhimma as a population. In some situations, this was recognized and for periods of time, the Muslim rulers in some jurisdictions would limit conversions. Then there are the Janissaries. Of course Islam was spread by the sword. Its bragged about all the time but you have to past the first few bookshelves at the mosque bookstore to get them!

On your challenging my use of the Hidaya, yes, when the jizya is paid, the dhimma are treated like citizens equal under the law. The problem is that Islamic law then states that you are free to opt for one of two, one for Muslims by converting, and one for the dhimma if you don’t. They are free, so the reasoning goes, because they are free to accept their status (“no compulsion”). If you’d like, I can key this in for you but you really already have it. If you go to the Ibn Kathir treatment of Verse 9:29, you will see the Christian pact of dhimmatude. Current Islamic law relating to non-Muslims essentially just codified that language. Just watch in Egypt as the Muslim Brotherhood comes more out in the open in running Egypt. You will see that they seek to impose the law of dhimmatude. We are already seeing this. In fact, out of concern for your safety, in about 8 months, I would advise you not to talk this way around Copts as they might club you! And again, they are always free under Islamic law to convert.

Of course you would already know this if you really did read Islamic law with the understanding that Muslims are very serious about the fact the Islamic law IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

12th / 14th Century stuff because that is what constitutes center mass for Islamic law. I thought about also keying something from Tabari or Shaybani (he wrote the original book of Islamic law on warfare in the 8th Century - that is still good law). I could use Islamic legal treatises written today (last 20 years) but they say the same thing and … and they cite to those authorities from the 11th to 15th Century. Al Ghazali is the granddaddy! Reliance of the Traveller, although at its base is a translation of al-Misri’s 14 Century Shafi’te Classic, is recognized as current law given Nu Ha Mim Keller’s updating and annotations. It is approved for circulation as such and sold in the Islamic stream of commerce as such! At the beginning of the book, in fact, it states the approving entities: VERY IMPRESSIVE and all but dispositive.

You are not going to find real Islamic law siding with you against me on the things where I challenge! I citing it! That is why I include the actual reference - to demonstrate that its not going to be close!

SirStephen

 

[MorningSong51]

Originally posted by Sir Stephen:

Your statement that “there is no Shariah ruling for forced conversions” is patently erroneous. In fact, forced conversion was not only directly commanded by Allah in both Versed 9:5 and 9:29, but Muhammad explicitly confirmed it in hadith cited by Bukhari and Muslim deemed “sahih”.

Whether there was a ruling or not - its a false conversion. Can any individual come to God within the context of that ruling, of convert or die - and made by its own religious leaders- and accept it. I am not asking you for an answer but for some to think about all that it takes for someone to change over. You know, come to think about all this, I can think of other rulings/laws that have changed this society, some of these laws that were passed didn’t transpose very well within the public’s eye - nor with some religious leaders. As a matter of fact, I think some of these laws that were passed (even in America) left some republican and democrats outside the door of…hmmm.

Also, what I’m saying,especially in the last post, is what gives a religious group/or individuals (any) the complete knowledge and understanding of what God is asking out of another - in the absolute truth?? The prophets of the Old Testament, as there had been greater and lesser prophets, were always directed from God to deliver his message – these messages weren’t rulings,but judgments. Some of these prophets, like Noah, preached of future warnings, others had delivered God’s message of judgment, promises and also salvation’s (redeemer’s and Savior), but what made these prophets – prophets, was a matter of choice, those who delivered a message for us to open our ears to hear and listen to them. I have always told this story, but the passage meant a lot to me (personally) Moses went to and asked God “Moses answered, “What if they do not believe me or listen to me and say, ‘The LORD did not appear to you’? The scriptural message is very clear, God understood that the people – were stiff necked because of the slavery – enduring the hardships from the cruelties of labor – religion isn’t a labor, Sir Stephen and another key word here is “slavery” - What is slavery? What did God tell Moses, in Exodus 3, '7 The LORD said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. 8 So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 9 And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them. 10 So now, go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt.”

The message that Christ delivered before and after his ascension, as in the same breath, was to deliver (redeem) those who were walking in darkness (slavery) – sin, as he was the light to guide our way out of the darkness and into the light, the same light that David spoke about, “For you are my light, O Lord; and the Lord will make the dark bright for me” The way to God is never an easy walk – the whole part of being is that God knows we will make mistakes in following him and that’s ok – he’s never been too strict, but in order for us to know this and understand the compassion about our God will be in our spiritual walk with him. Like the Exodus, God knows how the bitterness of slavery can sour the soul – its like drinking a bitter drink that some have had their taste of it. Each religion, having had their fundamentalists – those who have tried imposing some sort of religious rulings, have never been successful at the attempt – so how will Sharia law and rulings be upon others, with the same expectations of understanding them. Will it be like Bahrain – or Medina? Christians (from North Africa) who were converted in force – only to return back to the original religion, at the first chance they get? The issue/ruling of “convert or die” - can not enslave the thoughts, faith and belief of men – only the body, if its not internalized (spiritually) Sufism – mysticism knows how one soul can be entrapped – or enslaved, and what makes the soul bitter, I think these mystics are aware of this, yes? The rulings, if there ever was, has seen its past by previous leaders and those who institutionalized it, they also knew of the end results from the past.

A thought to this, Christ – the Messiah, had died rose and ascended in heaven so that the Spirit of Truth could come to us - at the time of Pentecost, those from outside the Jewish faith (Gentiles) converted into Christianity by the gift of the Spirit and with the leadership of the Apostles by letters and visits to the churches – Christianity has a great past and future. God had given each nation its allotment - it prophet and Messiahs (saviors), to bring God’s word to them – the idea of salvation/ redemption by force conversion doesn’t sound like a blessing.

 

[MorningSong51]

3What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun? 4Generations come and generations go,but the earth remains forever. 5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. 6 The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes,ever returning on its course. 7 All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.8 All things are wearisome,more than one can say.The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing.

**9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.**10 Is there anything of which one can say,“Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago;it was here before our time.

11There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come
will not be remembered by those who follow. Wisdom Is Meaningless

12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

15 What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted.

16 I thought to myself, “Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too,** is a chasing after the wind.**
18** For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.**

 

[Peace_of_cake]

SirStephen
Think this is a classic case of a little knowledge is dangerous.
You can’t interpret these texts like Common Law for one thing they are books of fiqh (jurisprudence) not books of fatawa (rulings) and they certainly are not laws of the land. As you say they are books further down the library shelf, because you have to have read every previous one. Also you have the matn (text) but not the shar (commentary) so you have only half the knowledge plus every interpretation you’d make is invalid since you’ve studied it with no teacher - this being a crime like gross negligence in Islamic Law.
The fact you mention Ghazali as the daddy when he isn’t in the Shafi’i school shows your lack of awareness of Islamic legal literature. He was most famous for theology and harmonising mysticism with law.
I donor have time to go through this point by point, but it is a good question for the blog; how do Muslims understand jihad from classical texts?
The upsetting thing is that you haven’t engaged with my points. Islam wasn’t spread by the sword and pointing to individual incidents is as useless as me pointing to 8 Arabs leaving Yemen for Indonesia and the whole country converting based on their good character! Also if you make such simplistic assumptions toward Shariah Law then it’ll bite you on Canon Law! If you understand law in terms of modern secular assumptions then you’re not seeing through Catholic eyes!
Anyway, just stick to brief questions please I’ve got enough on my plate dealing with our first round of articles on the trinity.
Go in peace

 

[sedonaman]

… Some things spring to mind that a muslim may say:

1. Muhammad is arguably the most influential person in world history. He founded a truly world religion which has proven successful in every time and place it’s been. The faiths you mention can’t claim this.
2. Muhammad had countless miracles like splitting the moon and speaking in any language etc this is the proof of any prophet. Again Smith etc can’t claim this
3. Muhammad exhibited exception character inwardly and outwardly in every field, giving birth to outstanding works of art poetry spirituality wisdom etc Again only a handful of faith can claim this sort of thing, Mormonism Bahai (which is a wayward Islamic sect anyway) et are not among them.

I can see this thread is headed down the same road we’ve been on many times before.

Anyway, I’ll desist from putting thought provoking responses since that’s the blog’s purpose. …

I don’t understand what you are saying here. Sounds like you are making two mutually exclusive statements.

 

[sedonaman]

I have an excellent knowledge of Islam, having an advanced degree in Art History specializing in Islamic Art.
It is my belief that anyone who thinks that they can truely have an interfaith discourse with Moslems, in the same way that Catholics and Protestants do, is naive.

Agreed.

The reason is that Islam teaches that they are the one and only true faith, and all others including the “people of the book” are in error and have no rights. A view, I might add, taught by Holy Mother the Church prior to Vatican II.

Having gone through pre-Vatican II Catechism, I recall the discussion about other religions being in error, but don’t recall the Church taught that non-Catholics had no rights. Obviously they do since they are also made in God’s image and likeness.

Even American converts to Islam are suspect by Arab and Irani Moslems because they read the Koran in translation, and it is stated in the commentaries of the Koran that is should be read only in Arabic, and that all prayers must be said in that language because Arabic is Allahs tongue.

Of all Islam’s claims to be the “true religion” this one stands out as demonstrating that it is not. Why would a god hand down a book that is “true” for all men for all time, when only a few can read and understand it, including most Muslims?

Since we are back on the “the-only-true-Koran-is-in-Arabic” debate, I re-post my previous for the benefit of new-comers:
Consider Old English of the Middle Ages with Modern English today:
In Old English:
Here bygynneth the Book of the Tales of Caunterbury
Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke.

In Modern English:
Here begins the Book of the Tales of Cantebury
When in April the sweet showers fall
That pierce March’s drought to the root and all
And bathed every vein in liquor that has power
To generate therein and sire the flower;
When Zephyr also has with his sweet breath,
Filled again, in every holt and heath,
The tender shoots and leaves, and the young sun
His half-course in the sign of the Ram has run,
And many little birds make melody
That sleep through all the night with open eye
(So Nature pricks them on to ramp and rage)
Then folk do long to go on pilgrimage,
And palmers to go seeking out strange strands,
To distant shrines well known in distant lands.
And specially from every shire’s end
Of England they to Canterbury went,
The holy blessed martyr there to seek
Who helped them when they lay so ill and weak.
So the Bible “changed” to keep up with the language that people spoke so that it would be understandable to those who are living now.
To claim that any language, including Arabic, is exempt from change in 1,400 years is the height of the absurd. In fact, if the Koran has not changed to keep up with the vernacular, we can say it is no longer the perfect word of Allah because it is less understandable, and the less understandable it is, the less perfect it is; and to the extent it is still understandable, it is to fewer and fewer people. Eventually, the language will become essentially extinct, and then NO ONE will understand it. Ironically, Muslims take pride in this by claiming the only true Koran is in Arabic. So the Muslim claim that it is the “perfect word of Allah”, as if to gain some prestige through membership in an exclusive club by excluding non-Arabic speakers, including most Muslims, is thus refuted and exposed for what it is.

 

[lioness]

I just wish to caution you as you enter an interfaith dialogue with Muslims… the Muslim “way of life” called Islam encompasses religion, cultural norms, and a complete governing system called sharia. Many American converts to Islam (called reverts by Muslims, due tot he fact that they believe all people were once Muslim first, hence a revert status is appropriate) also are completely unaware that the Quran’s later violent and anti-semitic/anti-Christian verses completely over-rule and cancel out all of the peaceful verses that are taught to new converts in the beginning of their :new spiritual journey."

Because “Islam” is so much more than just a religion in the western sense, when you discuss Islam vs. Christianity, you cannot compare apples to apples per se. In addition, the Middle Eastern cultural norms that are protected and cultivated in Islam are the opposite of our western “Golden Rule” upbringings. For example, where Christianity values and teaches love, and compassion for all, Islam teaches harshness, and ruthlessness to all except other Muslims. SO to approach this interfaith dialogue from a western mindset does not work. When you talk about protecting “innocents,” we mean women, children, people not in battle. “Innocents” in Islam refer to only Muslims. So they can say that they condemn violence against innocents, but you have to understand what they mean by “innocents!”

One final caution, as someone who has seen many many times the doctrine of taqiyya in dialogue with Muslims… they are commanded by Allah to lie in order to deceive all infidels (non-muslims). So they will not admit that the Quran commands violence against non-muslims, and they will promote the “religion of peace” veneer until someone points out that their holy books say otherwise. Then watch the other side come out, accusing US or YOU of being a bigot. (It is also forbidden by Allah to criticize anything about Islam).

I commend you for trying to understand a very complex and dangerous ideology… you will need a lot of spiritual preparation and prayer. I will pray that you are able to see clearly what God needs you to see.

God Bless…

 

[sedonaman]

I just wish to caution you as you enter an interfaith dialogue with Muslims… the Muslim “way of life” called Islam encompasses religion, cultural norms, and a complete governing system called sharia. Many American converts to Islam (called reverts by Muslims, due tot he fact that they believe all people were once Muslim first, hence a revert status is appropriate) also are completely unaware that the Quran’s later violent and anti-semitic/anti-Christian verses completely over-rule and cancel out all of the peaceful verses that are taught to new converts in the beginning of their :new spiritual journey."

Because “Islam” is so much more than just a religion in the western sense, when you discuss Islam vs. Christianity, you cannot compare apples to apples per se. In addition, the Middle Eastern cultural norms that are protected and cultivated in Islam are the opposite of our western “Golden Rule” upbringings. For example, where Christianity values and teaches love, and compassion for all, Islam teaches harshness, and ruthlessness to all except other Muslims. SO to approach this interfaith dialogue from a western mindset does not work. When you talk about protecting “innocents,” we mean women, children, people not in battle. “Innocents” in Islam refer to only Muslims. So they can say that they condemn violence against innocents, but you have to understand what they mean by “innocents!”

One final caution, as someone who has seen many many times the doctrine of taqiyya in dialogue with Muslims… they are commanded by Allah to lie in order to deceive all infidels (non-muslims). So they will not admit that the Quran commands violence against non-muslims, and they will promote the “religion of peace” veneer until someone points out that their holy books say otherwise. Then watch the other side come out, accusing US or YOU of being a bigot. (It is also forbidden by Allah to criticize anything about Islam).

I commend you for trying to understand a very complex and dangerous ideology… you will need a lot of spiritual preparation and prayer. I will pray that you are able to see clearly what God needs you to see.

God Bless…

Good post. I would add that while they might use the same vocabulary we do, their meanings are rarely the same as ours. For example, “peace” to us means the absence of conflict; but to Muslims it means that condition that will exist once Islam takes over the world.

 

[SirStephen]

Peace of Cake,
In 3 parts (it kills me to have to write it but …)

PART I:

To an earlier comment where you said “Yikes” about all my citations, that you could have looked them up, you should know that on any other subject I would have done just that. I have long since learned that on this subject, it is important to cowboy up to demonstrate to others in this discussion that such sources exist, they are authoritative, and say what they say. The condescension in your answers is nominally off-setting but what really concerns me is that much of what you say comes danger-close to disinformation. It is not that I disagree with much of what you stated, but that what you are stating is either misleading or wrong and demonstrably so as demonstrated. Hence, my decision to cite VERBATIM the Islamic sources known to be authoritative to raise the possible specter that you might be off base. All one need do to verify that Allah condemned Christianity is to do a Google on Verse 5:73 and read it! – and, well, there it is!

On both the condescending and misleading character of your comments, I would like to take two examples, First, your comments on Islamic law not being the law of the land suggesting that I am screen-scraping citations and making simplistic observations, and second; your comments on al-Ghazali suggesting I stated something erroneous. First Islamic law as the law of the land re: your two point:

• You can’t interpret these texts like Common Law for one thing they are books of fiqh (jurisprudence) not books of fatawa (rulings) and they certainly are not laws of the land.

• Also if you make such simplistic assumptions toward Shariah Law then it’ll bite you on Canon Law! If you understand law in terms of modern secular assumptions then you’re not seeing through Catholic eyes!

The second bullet first. You should know that I have a background in comparative and international law. I do not interpret Islamic law like Common Law. In fact, I do not interpret it at all. I simply restate published Islamic law from sources that are Islamic law or from entities that have standing to speak about Islamic law. All the comments I made with regard to Islamic law are in-line with Islamic legal characterizations of the points made. Hence, the citations. If I then turned around and decided to interpret Canon law as if it were Shari’ah, it would not be simplistic, it would be erroneous. It would also be malpractice. The reverse is also true. If I decide to analyze Islamic law as if it were Canon Law, I would draw erroneous conclusions and would likewise be committing malpractice. Both have their rules of constructions and rules of interpretation and both are unique! Hence, I am not at risk for being bitten in the a** in my treatment of Canon Law because of my treatment of Islamic Law. I MAKE NO ASSUMPTIONS AND HAVE MADE NONE! EVERYTHING I’VE SAID CAN BE ACCURATELY SOURCED TO ESTABLISH THE BONA FIDES OF THE STATEMENTS MADE. I do, however, suspect that you are laboring under what the intelligence community calls a “mirror image” problem in that you may be projecting into Islam your assumptions based on being a Catholic looking at Islamic law. This is a concern because many on the sidelines have taken notice of the American Catholic Churches rather bizarre relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood (and more than a few have raised eyebrows, I might add).

On to your law of the land comment. You said that Islamic law is not supposed to be the law of the land. You are simply and categorically wrong. Almost all the terrorism of the past 20 years concerns those fight to implement Shari’ah law and re-establish the Khaliphate. Most Arab countries have constitutions that state subordination to Islamic law – as many “extremists” correctly point out when challenging those regimes. Implementing Shari’ah as the law of the land and re-establishing the Khaliphate is the stated objective of the OIC, the MB and AQ. Let’s take a look at a few examples of such assertions in print. From the most popular school text for instruction to 7th grade American Muslim children in the United States, by Yahiya Emerick and titled What Islam is All About ** REMEMBER – TAUGHT IN AMERICA TODAY:

• To begin with, the law of the land is the Shari’ah of Allah. The leader, or Khalifa of the Islamic nation, implements the Shari’ah in society and the people try to follow it as best they can … (376)

o [SirStephen Comment: Remember, the stated objective of both al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood is the re-establishment of the Khaliphate and the re-institution of Islamic law! Yes, its being taught to American Muslim kids over and against the U.S. Constitution!]

• The basis of the legal and political system is the Shari’ah of Allah. Its main sources are the Qur’an and Sunnah. Muslims dream of establishing the power of Islam in the world.” (381)

• The duty of the Muslim citizen is to be loyal to the Islamic State … (382)

 

[SirStephen]

PART II

For the American Imam, Islamic Law is the law of the land. Imam Feasel Rauf, Islam: A Sacred Law Islam: What Every Muslim Should Know about Shariah, page 58 (of Ground Zero Mosque fame):

• But justice and equity, and the concepts of right and wrong, can only be an extension of an attachment to God and abiding by His dictates. And since a Shari’ah is understood as a law with God at its center, it is not possible in principle to limit the Shari’ah to some aspect of human life and leave out others. … And in reading a typical compendium on Islamic law, you will notice that, having discussed the list of credal (sic) and specifically religious ritual topics given above, it goes on to deal with family or personal law (i.e., marriage, divorce, paternity, guardianship and succession and inheritance), then with the law of contracts, or civil wrongs and criminal law; followed by the law of evidence and procedure, and with a multitude of other subjects, to a degree of detail that it covers even the rules of social etiquette, called adab. Even “Emily Post” issues are under the umbrella of the Shari’ah. The Shari’ah thus covers every field of law – public and private, national and international – together with enormous amounts of material that Westerners would not regard as law at all, because the basis of Shari’ah is the worship and obedience to, God through good works and moral behavior. Following the Sacred Law thus defines the Muslim’s belief in God.

For the Pakistani Islamic jurisprudence professor, Islamic Law is the law of the land. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Theories of Islamic Law: The Methodology of Ijtihad., 2d ed., (Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press, 2002), 50:

• Islam, it is generally acknowledged, is a “complete way of life” and at the core of this code is the law of Islam. This implies that a Muslim through his submission to Islam not only accepts the unity of Allah, the truth of the mission of Muhammad, but also agrees through a contract (bay’ah) with the Muslim community that his life be regulated in accordance with the ahkam of Allah, and in accordance with these ahkam alone. No other sovereign or authority is acceptable to the Muslim, unless it guarantees the application of these laws in their entirety. Any other legal system, howsoever attractive it may appear on the surface, is alien for Muslims and is not likely to succeed in the solution of their problems; it would be doomed from the start. … A comprehensive application of these laws, which flow directly or indirectly from the decrees (ahkam) of Allah, would mean that they should regulate every area of life, from politics to private transactions, from criminal justice to the laws of traffic, from ritual to international law, and from the laws of taxation and finance to embezzlement and white collar crimes.

For the Indonesian Islamic jurisprudence professor, Islamic Law is the law of the land. .From Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, 3d rev. ed., (Cambridge, UK: The Islamic Text Society, 2003), 8:

• Sovereignty in Islam is the prerogative of Almighty Allah alone. He is the absolute arbiter of values and it is His will that determines good and evil, right and wrong. It is neither the will of the ruler nor of any assembly of men, nor even the community as a whole, that determines the values and the laws which uphold those values. In its capacity as the vice-regent of Allah, the Muslim community is entrusted with the authority to implement the Shari’ah, to administer justice and to take all the necessary measures in the interest of good government. The sovereignty of the people, if the use of the word ‘sovereignty’ is appropriate at all, is a delegated, or executive, sovereignty, (sultan tanfidhi) only.

For the Malaysian Islamic jurisprudence professor, Islamic Law is the law of the land. From Abdur R. Rahman I. Doi, Shari’ah: The Islamic Law, 5:

• In the Shari’ah, there is an explicit emphasis on the fact that Allah is the Lawgiver and the whole Ummah, the nation of Islam, is merely His trustee. It is because of this principle that the Ummah enjoys a derivative rule-making power and not an absolute law-creating prerogative. The Islamic State, like the whole of what one might call Islamic political psychology, views the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) as one vast homogeneous commonwealth of people who have a common ideology in all matters both spiritual and temporal. The entire Muslim Ummah lives under the Shari’ah to which every member has to submit, with sovereignty belonging to Allah alone.

Finally, just to demonstrate actual implementation of Islamic law as the law of the land – see also Pakistan and Egypt among others - from the Constitutions of both Iraq and Afghanistan, constitutions that we brought forward, comes explicit language that both legal instruments subordinate to Islamic law. In fact, the Constitutions are explicit that the democratic stuff must yield to the Shari’ah stuff wherever there is a conflict:

• From the Iraqi Constitution: Section One, Article 2: First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a basic source of legislation: No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam

• Form the Afghan Constitution: Article 2 [Religions], (1) The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam. Article 3 [Law and Religion], In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam

I believe I have established a firm basis to sustain the claim that Islamic law is supposed to be the law of the land. I don’t believe we disagree. I believe you are wrong as a matter of fact and published Islamic law.

 

[SirStephen]

PART III

Regarding al-Ghazali, you said:

• “The fact you mention Ghazali as the daddy when he isn’t in the Shafi’i school shows your lack of awareness of Islamic legal literature. He was most famous for theology and harmonising mysticism with law.”

The implication is that I did not know what I was talking about. Let’s see! Yes, as it turns out, Ghazali was a prominent Sufi. But he was a world class Shafi’ite legal scholar as well. In fact, he is thought by many to be the greatest Islamic legal jurists of all time. Hence his nick-name, “Proof of Islam.” From the biographical note on Ghazali:

• al-Misri, Book X “Biographical Note,” at § x127: (Imam) Ghazali (a4.4) is Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad, Abu Hamid Hujjat al-Islam al-Ghazali al-Tusi, the Shafi’i Imam, Proof of Islam, and Sufi adept born in Tabiran, near Tus (just north of present day Mashhad, Iran), in 450/1058. The Imam of his time, nicknamed Shafi’i the Second for his legal virtuosity, he was a brilliant intellectual who first studied jurisprudence at …

Ghazali was a Shafi’ite jurist and this is what made him the most famous! Just as Averroes, the Maliki qadi (judge), could be both a philosopher and write aggressively on jihad against the Spaniards, so Ghazali could write aggressively on jihad and the need to humiliate the infidel. In fact, the famed Sufi philosopher (and even more pre-eminent Shafi’i authority) emphasized the calculated role humiliation plays when imposing the jizyah tax ala Verse 9:29:

• The dhimma is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle … Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya …on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits the dhimmi on the protuberant bone beneath his ear *… The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle-work is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They - the dhimmis - have to wear an identifying patch on their clothing, even women, and even in the public baths…dhimmis must hold their tongue. (Emphasis added) Muhammad Abu Hamid Hujjat al-Islam al-Ghazali, Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi’i, trans. Michael Schub, (Beirut, 1979), 199-200, 202-203.

Yet, he was a very famous Sufi as well. You noted he harmonized Sufi mysticism with Islamic law. You could say that. But it would be more accurate to say that he ensured Sufism’s subordination to Islamic law. Among the elements of disinformation about Islam that is sustained in the Western academic and religious segments is the idea that Sufism is a form of Islam that is fully “other.” There are many famous Sufi jihadis. The group that killed the school kids in Baslan were Sufis. The “Sufism as the Other” narrative allows for the illusion that a common spiritual / mystical bond can be developed and sustained when overrepresented in outreach forums. As Ghazali makes clear, Sufism is fully subordinated to Islamic law:

• al-Misri, Book S, at § s4.6 “The Delusions of Would-Be Sufis.” (Ghazali When anyone claims there is a state between him and Allah relieving him of the need to obey the Sacred Law such that the prayer, fasting, and so forth are not obligatory for him, or that drinking wine and taking other’s people’s money are permissible for him – as some pretenders to Sufism, namely those “above the Sacred Law” (ibahiyyun) have claimed – there is no doubt the Imam of Islam or his representative is obliged to kill him. Some hold that executing such a person is better in Allah’s sight than killing a hundred unbelievers in the path Allah Most High (Hashiya al-Shaykh Ibrahim al-Bajuri (y5), 2.267). (Emphasis added.)

Among the other things Ghazali is famed for is his attack on reason by condemning philosophy under Islamic law. In fact, his monograph, The Incoherence of the Philosophers, is a classic (and its scary logical from an Islamic perspective)! His is among the works used to get both Averroes and his works condemned! Another giant in the Shafi’te community, Nawawi, is also authoritatively cited in the contemporary Islamic legal community on issues of philosophy. From Book A “Communally Obligatory Knowledge” Section 7 “Subjects that are not Sacred Knowledge”, Paragraph 1:

• (Nawawi “Having mentioned the categories of Sacred Knowledge, the subjects it excludes are those unlawful, … a7.2 Unlawful knowledge includes: (2) philosophy.” Reliance of the Traveller, at § a7.2

Reliance goes on to explain what about philosophy was condemned:

• “Cosmological theories and all-too-human attempts to solve ultimate questions about man, God, life after death, and so forth, without divinely revealed guidance of the Koran and sunna. Any opinion that contradicts a well-known tenet of Islamic belief that there is scholarly consensus upon (ijma) is unbelief (kufr), and is unlawful to learn or teach, except by way of explaining that it is unlawful.” Reliance of the Traveller, at § w10.0*

 

[SirStephen]

PART IV (sorry all, but since we are speaking on al-Ghazali, and since there is so much outreach with the Islamic community, I thought it important to make a note concerning what may be ethical in one body of law may not in be in another)

Before moving on, it should be known that Ghazali is also among the great authorities on the question of permissible lying, especially to infidels. While lying is good, he makes it clear that misleading is better:

• This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest…When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N: i.e., when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible) and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. Reliance of the Traveller, at § r8.2

• But it is more precautionary (def: c6.5) in all such cases to employ words that give a misleading impression, meaning to intend by one’s words something this is literally true, in respect to which one is not lying (def: r10.2), while the outward purport of the words deceives the hearer, …) Reliance of the Traveller, at § r8.2

Where is this in Canon Law?

God Bless!

SirStephen

 

[Peace_of_cake]

…

I once saw an interesting program about 9/11 conspiracy believers. The had this kind of blindness and when their opinions where challenged spouted loads of half baked information that didn’t show one coherent thought…
I’m afraid I can’t talk to you anymore
Have a nice life

 

[Peace_of_cake]

I just wish to caution you as you enter an interfaith dialogue with Muslims… the Muslim “way of life” called Islam encompasses religion, cultural norms, and a complete governing system called sharia. Many American converts to Islam (called reverts by Muslims, due tot he fact that they believe all people were once Muslim first, hence a revert status is appropriate) also are completely unaware that the Quran’s later violent and anti-semitic/anti-Christian verses completely over-rule and cancel out all of the peaceful verses that are taught to new converts in the beginning of their :new spiritual journey."

This post has highlighted some of the deep rooted fears held by some. You’re really quite frightened aren’t you? Just out of interest, how many Muslims do you know?
Just towhat I’ve cited here:
Are we as concerned about Judaism and Buddhism which are also complete ways of life? I’m rather concerned you do not think Catholicism is…
Some Muslims believe you are born into Islam, but the hadith clearly says fitrah which is a state of innocence so these Muslims ae mistaken. Islam makes no such error.
If you want to go into naskh (abrogation) then know it is the most complex science of exegisis (tafsir). Whilst some commentators have mentioned abrogation by the sword - most notably Qurtubi - no school of law has accepted it as a rule since as Shah Wali Allah Dehlwi points out this would mean abrogating 195 verses. So it is a false claim!
All the rest is as mistaken… your comments about taqiyyah are quite absurd
Anyway, Im more than prepared for my dialogue thanks

 

[SirStephen]

Please do tell what I posted that was cited that was incoherent! I’ve dismantled your assertions in a factual repeatable manner!

What was your game posting - as if informed - information that could not stand up to scrutiny?

SirStephen

 

[SirStephen]

Lioness,

Everything you said is correct and demonstrably so.

All four orthodox schools of Sunni Islam, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali recognize abrogation. To qualify to be a qadi (judge) one must know all the abrogating (nashikh) and abrogated verses (mansukh). This is NOT a controversy in Islam, although many in the Islamic world would prefer that you not know anything about it. The concept of abrogation goes back to the beginning as it has a Quranic basis:

• Those who reject Faith say: "Why is not the Qur’an revealed to him all at once? Thus is it revealed, that We may strengthen thy heart thereby, and We have rehearsed it to thee in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually. (Qur’an 25:32)

• It is a Qur’an which We have divided into parts from time to time, in order that thou mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have revealed it by stages. (Qur’an 17:106)

• When We substitute one revelation for another - and Allah knows best what He reveals in stages – They say, “Thou art but a forger”: But most of them understand not. (Qur’an 16:101)

• None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar; knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things? (Qur’an 2:106)

As for taqiya, in the “Part IV” of my last overlarge entry, I actually cited Ghazali from a text of Islamic law on the requirement to lie. So, you are correct!

Fitna is not a state of innocence, it is a state of what the Qur’an calls “tumult and oppression.” Not only is Peace of Cake wrong, he is precisely wrong.

I have noticed that when he challenges, he comes accross as condescending as if he is looking down from a higher level of knowledge giving himself permission to talk down. That said, he has yet to substantively rebound to my challenges so now, to him, I am a 9-11 Conspiracy believer. In a different forum, given his approach, I’d of noted how much what he says sounds like stuff right out of the MB playbook!

I am sure you made your comments based on the fact that you already did the due diligence research to make your points. Great job!

SirStephen