N
neploho
Guest
Hello.
As there seem to be quite a few Muslim apologists here I thought I would ask a question. I do not believe Islam is an evil religion or has its genesis in satanic inspiration or any of that garbage. I honestly have tried to study the religion honestly. I do admire many aspects of the faith and understand fully why so many in the west are leaving Christianity to embrace Islam. Never the less I do have a few concerns that I hope you will address. I have asked these questions on other occasions but have never received an adequate answer. I do not intend these criticisms to be “gottcha’s” and I hope this does not turn into a “Bash Islam” thread. Rather these are reservations I still have about the religion after some modest study.
1-Jihad. Many Muslim intellectuals have said that there is not religious doctrine so misunderstood in the west as what Muslims mean by Jihad. I fully agree with them. Yet despite the richness and beauty of some parts of the teaching there do seem to be some disturbing particulars. Many Muslims I have talked to say that Islam only condones defensive Jihad. I believe this is correct with respect to the Shia’ to a limited respect. Yet Sura 9:29 does seem to clearly advocate aggressive military expeditions. Sayyed Qutb points to this verse to justify his ideology. Now I would agree that Qutb is more Marxist then genuinely in the Islamic tradition but I have read Shafa’i books of Muslims law which does affirm that, while individuals Muslims may be exempt, the Muslim community as a whole does have an obligation to wage aggressive war against none Islamic communities. Treaties may be called but only to give the Muslims the benefit of regrouping. In his commentary of the Qur’an Muhammad Asad maintains that abrogation of verses is incorrect and that therefore this verse must be read in context with the more defensive verses of earlier revelation. Yet I cannot see how this verse fits with such injunctions as we find in Sura 2 (somewhere around 190-195 I believe) where Muslims are explicitly told to “begin not hostilities, Allah loves not the aggressors”. To be these two commands seem totally at odds with each other. Moreover I do not believe anyone could honestly say the early Muslim community beginning with Umar interpreted Jihad as a purely defensive enterprise. As to the Hadith. There are many wonderful Hadith which lay the grounds for a very progressive just war ethic. Not even Qutb could find justification for the targeting of civilians. In fact several Hadith have Muhammad very explicitly reprimanding Muslim soldiers for killing women or children. In one, as I recall, the soldier protested that they were simply the “children of Kufrs” at which point Muhammad angerly reminded them that they were also once the children of Kufrs and then commands, very clearly, three times in a row to never kill children. Despite these admirable ethical dimensions it seems that the Hadith do also point to aggressive military action. Any thoughts or illuminations on this subject would be appreciated.
2-The transmission of Hadith. I think there is reasonable evidence that the Qur’an we now have is more or less the Qur’an of Muhammad. As to the Hadith, however, I just don’t see how anyone could consider them realiable enough to be a “living Qur’an" I do not see anything wrong with Muslims considering the actions of Muhammad a “living Qur’an” but I cannot understand how one could consider the transmission of Hadith reliably.
3-Factual errors. The Qur’an, as I recall, joins the Bible in claiming creation was an event that occurred over six days. It also says God made man out of a blood clot. It seems to suppose that the sun revolves around the earth etc.
4-Free will. Does Islam say men and women have free will? Of course it seems that the Qur’an goes back and forth on this matter. At times God sets a seal on the hearts of men, yet on other occasions we seem to be antonymous agents. Of course this has never been a settled issue in Islam. As we know Al-Ash’ari was driven from the Mu’tazali over just this issue and different thinkers have had different opinions on the matter. I suppose I find the idea of God damning individuals who were not free agents to the, rather explicit, torments of hell as recounted by the Qur’an a moral outrage. Yet Al-Ash’ari and other great Muslim thinkers have pointed out the numerous paradox’s which arise from granting free will within the context of Islamic theology.
5-Concubines. Shabbir Akhtar has pointed out that the Qur’an does not initiate the practice of concubinage but simply regulates it and that consequently Muslims are free to disregard the whole ugly practice. While this is encouraging, and the Qur’an has many wonderful passages extolling the merits of freeing conscripted individuals, it still seems a moral failing that Muslims men may impose themselves upon those “their right hands possesses”. I guess this is a bit flimsy, yet it is still discomforting.
As there seem to be quite a few Muslim apologists here I thought I would ask a question. I do not believe Islam is an evil religion or has its genesis in satanic inspiration or any of that garbage. I honestly have tried to study the religion honestly. I do admire many aspects of the faith and understand fully why so many in the west are leaving Christianity to embrace Islam. Never the less I do have a few concerns that I hope you will address. I have asked these questions on other occasions but have never received an adequate answer. I do not intend these criticisms to be “gottcha’s” and I hope this does not turn into a “Bash Islam” thread. Rather these are reservations I still have about the religion after some modest study.
1-Jihad. Many Muslim intellectuals have said that there is not religious doctrine so misunderstood in the west as what Muslims mean by Jihad. I fully agree with them. Yet despite the richness and beauty of some parts of the teaching there do seem to be some disturbing particulars. Many Muslims I have talked to say that Islam only condones defensive Jihad. I believe this is correct with respect to the Shia’ to a limited respect. Yet Sura 9:29 does seem to clearly advocate aggressive military expeditions. Sayyed Qutb points to this verse to justify his ideology. Now I would agree that Qutb is more Marxist then genuinely in the Islamic tradition but I have read Shafa’i books of Muslims law which does affirm that, while individuals Muslims may be exempt, the Muslim community as a whole does have an obligation to wage aggressive war against none Islamic communities. Treaties may be called but only to give the Muslims the benefit of regrouping. In his commentary of the Qur’an Muhammad Asad maintains that abrogation of verses is incorrect and that therefore this verse must be read in context with the more defensive verses of earlier revelation. Yet I cannot see how this verse fits with such injunctions as we find in Sura 2 (somewhere around 190-195 I believe) where Muslims are explicitly told to “begin not hostilities, Allah loves not the aggressors”. To be these two commands seem totally at odds with each other. Moreover I do not believe anyone could honestly say the early Muslim community beginning with Umar interpreted Jihad as a purely defensive enterprise. As to the Hadith. There are many wonderful Hadith which lay the grounds for a very progressive just war ethic. Not even Qutb could find justification for the targeting of civilians. In fact several Hadith have Muhammad very explicitly reprimanding Muslim soldiers for killing women or children. In one, as I recall, the soldier protested that they were simply the “children of Kufrs” at which point Muhammad angerly reminded them that they were also once the children of Kufrs and then commands, very clearly, three times in a row to never kill children. Despite these admirable ethical dimensions it seems that the Hadith do also point to aggressive military action. Any thoughts or illuminations on this subject would be appreciated.
2-The transmission of Hadith. I think there is reasonable evidence that the Qur’an we now have is more or less the Qur’an of Muhammad. As to the Hadith, however, I just don’t see how anyone could consider them realiable enough to be a “living Qur’an" I do not see anything wrong with Muslims considering the actions of Muhammad a “living Qur’an” but I cannot understand how one could consider the transmission of Hadith reliably.
3-Factual errors. The Qur’an, as I recall, joins the Bible in claiming creation was an event that occurred over six days. It also says God made man out of a blood clot. It seems to suppose that the sun revolves around the earth etc.
4-Free will. Does Islam say men and women have free will? Of course it seems that the Qur’an goes back and forth on this matter. At times God sets a seal on the hearts of men, yet on other occasions we seem to be antonymous agents. Of course this has never been a settled issue in Islam. As we know Al-Ash’ari was driven from the Mu’tazali over just this issue and different thinkers have had different opinions on the matter. I suppose I find the idea of God damning individuals who were not free agents to the, rather explicit, torments of hell as recounted by the Qur’an a moral outrage. Yet Al-Ash’ari and other great Muslim thinkers have pointed out the numerous paradox’s which arise from granting free will within the context of Islamic theology.
5-Concubines. Shabbir Akhtar has pointed out that the Qur’an does not initiate the practice of concubinage but simply regulates it and that consequently Muslims are free to disregard the whole ugly practice. While this is encouraging, and the Qur’an has many wonderful passages extolling the merits of freeing conscripted individuals, it still seems a moral failing that Muslims men may impose themselves upon those “their right hands possesses”. I guess this is a bit flimsy, yet it is still discomforting.
