Discussions on the Internet - 3

(Continued)

45 - True and False Religion

Question:-

What is the difference between Christianity and Islam and what makes you think Islam is superior to Christianity. They are just two religions both based on faith.

Answer:-

It has been pointed out on several occasions that the fact that some people are called Muslims does not necessarily mean that they are true Muslims and follow true Islam. This is not only because some people are merely born into families or countries where there are traditions influenced by Islam and neither practice nor know or understand Islam. But also because some have misunderstood it owing to their own mental limitations, or cling to teachings taught by others who have misunderstood it or have distorted it by selecting some parts while ignoring others, or given them a twisted meaning because of some prejudice or self-interest. The desire for wealth, power or prestige may have been the motive. To some extent this is overcome because Islam does not have an organised Church and Priesthood, and everyone is responsible for his own salvation. The fact, however, is that many Muslims have fallen into the same condition as people of other religions - they have fallen into infidelity and idolatry by forming fixations and attachments to leaders, imams, saints or their dogmas and follow others blindly, thereby falling into sects, each of which deviates in different ways from the truth. There is, therefore, not much essential difference between a corrupt Christianity and a corrupt Islam or any other corrupted religion.

Islam, however, teaches that genuine Prophets were sent to all peoples with the same message. All religions are, therefore, originally a single religion though formulated differently for different people with different languages, mentalities, cultures and conditions of life. There is also a progression such that, though each dispensation of religion is suitable for its time and place, there is development and supercession. The real difference is not between different religions but between true and false religion.

The main objection which Islam has to Christianity is that the Churches teach that Jesus is God, that God is a Trinity and that salvation is achieved by the belief in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, doctrines which were not taught by Jesus in the New Testament.

The death and resurrection of Jesus as an atonement for man's sins does not make sense for several reasons. God's Justice demands that everyone is judged for his own deeds. Jesus was sinless. how could he be punished for other people's sins. Is it impossible for God to forgive sins directly? Surely not. How can a god die? If he did die and was resurrected again where is the sacrifice? When we look around in the world we find that sin is still rampant. The present New Testament consists of reports and commentaries about Jesus and his teachings by third parties, not the teachings of Jesus. There are several gospels which have been left out of the New Testament though accepted by many early Christians, and some tell us that Jesus was not crucified but that Judas who had betrayed Jesus was crucified instead.

There are a number of disagreements between the accounts of the crucifixion in the four Gospels of the New Testament. The story would not stand up in a court of law today. It is much more likely that Jesus fainted and was mistaken for dead. When Pilate was told that he had died he "marvelled that he was already dead" (Mark15:44). When the soldiers pierced his side with a spear blood flowed out showing that the heart was still pumping (John 19:34). Jesus was taken down, wrapped in linen and placed in a tomb. But when the women came to anoint his body the tomb was empty. Jesus later appeared to the apostles but because they had believed that he was dead they were afraid, supposing that he was a ghost. Jesus, however, reassured them by instructing Thomas to touch him and see that he was flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).

Jesus was asked several times how Eternal Life could be obtained:-

"And behold a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him saying; Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? he said unto him: what is written in the law? How readest thou? And he answered and said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he (Jesus) said unto him: Thou hast answered right: this do and thou shalt live." Luke 10:25-28

"And a certain ruler asked him saying: Good master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him: Why callest thou me good? None is good, save ONE, that is GOD. Thou knowest the commandments, do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honour thy father and mother. And he said: All these have I kept from my youth up. Now when Jesus heard these things he said unto him : Yet lackest thou one thing; sell all that thou hast and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come follow me." Luke 18:18-22

It is clear from these verses that there is no sign of the doctrine of salvation by the blood of Jesus. Indeed, we read:-

"And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man (Jesus), it shall be forgiven him; but unto him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven." Luke 12:10

"Not everyone that saith unto me (Jesus): Lord, lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN." Matthew 7:21

"And this is Eternal Life that they might know Thee, the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent. I have glorified Thee on earth; I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do. And now O Father, glorify Thou me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was. I have manifested Thy name unto men which Thou gavest me out of the world; Thine they were, and Thou gavest them me; and they have KEPT THY WORD." John 17:3-6

"Now we know that God hears not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He hears." John 9:31

"Jesus answered them and said : My doctrine is not mine but His that sent me." John 7:16

"For I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me." John 6:38

It is clear that Jesus and his followers were Muslims in the true sense of the word, and that in so far as Muslims follow the same teaching as the one promoted by Jesus, Muslims are the true Christians.

Christians object that by selecting the above sayings of Jesus Muslims have created a partial and biased view. He also said:-

"I and my Father are One." John 10:30

"He that has seen me has seen the Father." John 14:9

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16

"Jesus said unto him: I am the way, the truth and the life: no man comes unto the Father but by me. If ye had known me, you should have known my Father also; and from now you know Him and have seen Him." John 14:6-7

If all this is interpreted as meaning that Jesus is God then there is an obvious contradiction. The only begotten refers to the Spirit or Word which symbolically creates sons of God (John 1:12-13)

The Quran also says that to love God is to follow the Messenger (3:310) and to obey the Messenger is to obey God (4:80) and that no distinctions should be made between God and His messengers (4:150). This is because the Messengers are in complete surrender to God; they are perfect examples of Islam. There is an identity of purpose. This does not mean they are God. Thus the Quran offers the Christian an escape from schizophrenia.

----------<O>----------

46 - Modernism, Traditionalism and the Middle Way

"A.S." presented an article attacking Modernism in Islam by Jamal Zarabozo

Comment:-

Though, the criticism of Modernism are valid to a certain extent and there are certainly modernists among Muslims, the trouble is that this word "modernism", synonymous with "innovation", has become a slogan and curse word applied to any one with whom some others disagree without examining the beliefs. Another, an opposite one, is "traditionalism" which the above mentioned article supports. One could write an article against traditionalism by pointing out how the world has changed, contracted and become more inter-dependant because of technology, organisation and knowledge and how the ways of life, motives and modes of thinking have changed so that older modes cannot be understood. But traditionalists wish to ignore all this and stick to the conditions which existed when Islam was dominant in the world or even further back when the Righteous Caliphs ruled. They want to turn the clock back which is impossible, thereby becoming more and more maladjusted. This must lead to suffering and even destruction which can only be avoided by abandonment of the faith. Traditionalism is also condemned in Quran 2:170.

A study of the Quran shows that the word "Islam" is used to cover a whole series of religions including those of Moses (saw), Jesus (saw) and Muhammad (saw). Had traditionalism had its way none of these religions would have been established since they were all innovations in their time. When things degenerate gradually and imperceptively even the reestablishment of the original seems like an innovation, especially when given in a different form.

But it is obvious to most sane people that the world does change, and even in religion there is a progression from the Egyptian - Hebrew - Christian to Islam, and that Islam should have incorporated the process of development into itself. But it also obvious that not everything has progressed, many things have deteriorated and a great number of new environmental, social and psychological problems have arisen and continue to increase.

There is a debate going on in the Muslim world, and an attitude which is emerging, also supported by myself, is quite distinct from both. We will call it the Middle Way. Its tenets can be summarised as follows:-

(1) Allah is the Lord of the Universe and this world. He has created the Universe and man for a purpose.

(2) The Quran is the Word of God. It is the standard and the source of all facts, meanings and values for Muslims. It has a purpose, it is a guidance for man within the context of the over all Universal purpose.

(3) The Prophet (saw) was sent by Allah at a particular historical period to guide people. The Sunna of the Prophet, some of it described in the Hadith is an interpretation and application of the Quran for a particular time, place and people. Some of it also has a more general significance. The Sunna cannot, therefore, take priority over the Quran, but is judged by it.

(4) Allah has made man into a vicegerent and equipped him with the faculties necessary to carry out this task. (a) The Quran and the Sunna can be understood and followed only by exercising these faculties. "Aql" is understood as intelligence and consists of three levels of faculties - for reason, experience and inspiration (32:9, 8:24, 6:107). (b) There is, however, a difference between the reality, including the Quran, the experience of it and the intellectual interpretation. (c) But not only this, man is to be judged by how he exercises his faculties. The correct exercise of these faculties is part of the Universal Plan.

(5) Human beings, however, have fallen from the state of perfection. 95:4-6. Their faculties have atrophied, or become corrupted owing to attachments, fixations, addictions, greed, pride, lust etc. - in short idolatry. They have forgotten Allah and, therefore, their own souls. They are prone to fantasy and wishful, subjective thinking, motivation and action rather than objective principles. The results of the free exercise of their faculties cannot, therefore, be trusted. Aql cannot take priority over the Quran or Sunna.

(6) It is because of this that Allah has sent guidance in the form of Prophets, Scriptures, and religious disciplines. It is the application of the religious discipline which allows man to ascend, to grow, to purify and reactivate their faculties. Those who are further advanced on this ladder have better functioning faculties. What they see and understand is higher than what others at lower levels understand. Those at the higher level must help those at the lower level, and those at the lower level must accept the guidance of those at the higher. Obviously, since we are speaking of the increase in Aql, this cannot be a blind following. The spiritual growth and development of the individual depends entirely on his own efforts. "Man will have only that for which he makes conscious efforts." 53:39. And see also 17:19, 20:15, 22:78,

(7) There are three ways in which the validity of the faculties can be enhanced:- (a) The co-operation of many minds - discussion and consensus. (b) Testing against the real world made by Allah through observation and experiment. (c) The religious discipline.

(8) Evolution is seen as a spiritual ascent in stages 71:13-14. 84:16. The view of history is that it is cyclic or spiral-like - there are ups and downs, advances, degeneration and regeneration, and that people are tested and those who advance replace those which do not. 2:155-156 3:142 6:134-136, 35:16-17.

(9) Conditions of life change and so do people formed by these conditions, including their experiences, motives and ways of thinking. What could be understood at one time cannot be understood at another - the language, the conceptual system itself changes. This is why reformulations of religions also had to occur. The same thing can be seen from many different angles and can be described in many different ways. It is necessary to find one which is most appropriate to aid understanding. This does not mean that the object has changed. In a culture where the scientific and technological language dominates things are best understood if they are described in those languages or else an intensive program of instruction in the language has to be undertaken in which the religion was revealed, but this involves recreating the culture and way of life with respect to which the words acquired their meaning. It is fixation on a particular description or angle of view which prevents the proper understanding of the object. The Quran is still Haqq, but the interpretations of it are not.

(10) There is a difference between (a) the aims or purpose of religion (b) The methodology or techniques employed to achieve the aim (c) the forms which the religion takes in different situations. No, religion is not relative as to aims. As to methodology, Islam recognises the validity of other religions, e.g. 5:48, 5:68-69, 3:64, 22:76. Some may be better or more appropriate for some people or times. The forms are certainly relative. Each area or community does things differently. The Quran recognises variety and does not regard it as a good reason for sectarianism and conflict. 2:148, 2:213 5:48. The purpose has priority over the methods and the methods over the forms.

(11) The purpose of Islam may be said to be three fold, deriving from the notion of vicegerency, and they are interdependent : (a) the spiritual growth of the individual, (b) social order and (c)a function with respect to the environment.

(12) There are three ways in which Islam is to be established:- (a) by means of a law which is in conformity with human nature (b) by means of education. This is to be understood in a wide sense which includes not just schools and colleges but also the conditions of the home and family, the example of parents, teachers and authorities, the whole culture including the media of communication (newspapers, radio, television, cinema, recorders etc.. (c) The results of the discipline are to enhance consciousness, conscience and will - the direct guidance of Allah. "Despair not of the Spirit of Allah." 12:87. 5:35, 6:123,163-164, 8:24, 9:109-112.

This corresponds to three levels of man:- first he must be physically civilised, then he must mentally and morally reconstructed and then he must be spiritualised. The first is a means creating the conditions for the second, and the second for the third. The Law is not, therefore, the goal and the whole of Islam. The attitude which we may call Legalism is rejected.

There has always been a struggle between the forces of Conservatism and Inertia on the one hand and those of Change and radicalism on the other, both within societies and nature in general. In fact both are required to keep a balance. As the Quran tells us:-

"All things have We created by pairs that haply ye may reflect. Therefore flee unto Allah." 51:49-50.

According to one Hadith "Every innovation is misguidance, even if the people regard it as good."

But the Prophet (saw) is also reported to have said:-

"If anyone establishes a good Sunna in Islam he will have a reward for it and the equivalent of the reward of those who act upon it after him, without theirs being diminished in any respect; but he who establishes a bad Sunna in Islam will bear responsibility for it and the responsibility of those who act upon it after him, without theirs being diminished in any respect." Muslim transmitted it. Mishkat Al-Masabih Book 2 - Knowledge.

The problem with Hadith, it has been pointed out several times, is that they are isolated statements which do not tell us who things were said to under what circumstances and in respect to what. We can use Aql to a certain extent. This tells us that the Quran and the Sunna both require us to use Aql and to seek knowledge. If this is so, can it possibly be the case that they also require us not to apply this Aql and the new knowledge? Obviously not. These Hadith, therefore, must refer to something particular otherwise there is also a contradiction between them.

I will interpret them as follows unless convinced otherwise:-

(1) We ought to seek knowledge rather than speculate or conjecture (Quran 10:37) We should apply that which is grounded on knowledge and not that which is founded on speculation, fantasy, prejudice etc.. Since knowledge refers to something which exists, it is not innovation in the real sense. There are a number of things in the Quran which have been ignored but rediscovered or which can only be understood now because of the progress in knowledge or by those who have made some spiritual progress. Is the application of this knowledge to be banned as innovation? Certainly not.

(2) In effect this means that things should be left to the learned, the experts who have made the necessary effort to acquire knowledge according to the verse:- "O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if you have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if ye are in truth believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end." 4:59

It should be noted that these third authorities are not given the right to decide on what is true but have to abide by the Word of God and that of the Prophet which could be interpreted as the Quran and the Sunna or more widely as the Creation of God and the faculty for inspiration or revelation.

(3) The ban on innovation refers mainly to spiritual doctrines and practices, and the value system, where ignorance can do a great amount of harm. It cannot refer to social institutions or to technology. A school or hospital and a car and a television set are all innovations.

(4) Everything which is not expressly forbidden is allowed, and everything which is expressly made obligatory cannot be altered.

(5) A distinction must be made between the essential and the accidental, or the essence and the form. The form may be less important. Prayer, for instance, is obligatory but its exact form can vary. But we must be careful here - true prayer is always to God and requires a certain mental set - these are essential. The direction faced is not. But it is entirely possible that the motions and postures and the words uttered and so on do have an important role to play in creating the appropriate mental set. Thus we make a third distinction, the means, which may be essential under certain circumstances but not others. The Quran contains many things in outline but not in detail or exact form - e.g.. an economic system, a political system, a social system, a cosmology and so on. The forms of these can change.

----------<O>----------

47 - Reading the Quran

A reading of some of the post on this site shows that there is often a very naive understanding of the Quran.

The Quran was originally, and is essentially, a recitation, not a book of paper and ink. It was meant to have a spiritual or psychological effect. For some it has become a source of conditioned reflexes and for others a subject for mental exercises.

The correct use of the Quran is indicated in the following verses. A reading or study of the Quran from any other point of view, though not completely futile, must be regarded as having a very limited use.

"And when you recite the Quran, seek refuge in Allah from Satan, the outcast." 16:98

"This indeed is a noble Quran in a Book kept hidden which none touches save the purified, a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds." 56:77-80

"Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, who read it with the RIGHT READING, those believe in it. "2:121

"And who goes farther astray than he who follows his own desires without guidance from Allah. Lo! Allah guides not wrongdoing folk." 28:50

"And We reveal in the Quran that which is a healing and a mercy for believers though it increases the evil doers in naught but ruin." 17:82

"...But it (the Quran) is clear revelation in the hearts of those who have been given knowledge, and none deny Our revelations, save wrong-doers." 29:49

"This (Quran) is naught else than a Reminder unto Creation, unto whomsoever of you wills to walk straight, and ye will not, unless it be that Allah wills, the Lord of Creation." 81:27-29

"Do you not see how Allah coins a similitude: a goodly saying, as a goodly tree, its roots set firm, its branches reaching into heaven, giving its fruit at every season by permission of its Lord? Allah coins a similitude for mankind in order that they may reflect." 14:24-25

"See how We repeat the verses that they may understand." 6:65

"And certainly We have repeated for mankind in this Quran, every kind of similitude, but the majority of mankind do not consent to aught but denying." 17:89

"And thus do We repeat the verses and that they may say: You have read; and that We may make it clear to a people who know." 6:108

"And no example do they bring to thee but We bring to thee the truth and the best 'Tafsir' (exegesis)" 25:33

"Thus do We make the verses distinct for a people who reflect." 10:24

"Indeed We have made the verses distinct for a people who will utilize their understanding." (6:98

"A Book We have revealed to you abounding in good that they may ponder over its verses, and that those endowed with understanding may be mindful." 38:29

"Ar-Rahmaan (The Beneficent God), It is He who teaches the Quran." 55:1-2

"Do not move your tongue with this (Quran) to make haste with it. Surely on Us (is the responsibility for) the collecting of it and the reciting of it. Therefore when We have recited it, follow its recitation. Again on Us (devolves) the explaining of it." 75:16-19

"That is The Book, there is no perplexity in it, guidance for those who ward off evil ." 2:2

----------<O>----------

48 - Good and Evil.

Re : Is music Haram ?

I think the best guidance about this and anything else is:-

"Whosoever does right, it is only for the good of his own soul that he does right, and whosoever errs, errs only to its hurt. Lo ladden soul can bear another's burden." 17:15

In other words that which is beneficial to the soul is good and that which harms it is evil. And how do we know what is good or evil? We have to seek knowledge about this both from scientific research and from self-examination, and we have to undertake the discipline which uncovers our consciousness and conscience, because:-

"And by the soul and Him who perfected it and inspired it (with conscience of) what is wrong for it and what is right for it. He indeed is successful who causes it to grow, and he indeed is a failure who stunts it." 91:7-10

This establishes the definition of success and failure in Islam.

A person is finally judged by his record (Quran 83 and 56), by his deeds and the thoughts which motivate him (41:21-23). He may pursue worldly, temporal values or heavenly, eternal values (2:200-202, 42:36, 57:20)

"By (the Witness of) passing time, lo! man is in a state of loss, except those who have faith and do good works, and exhort one another to Truth and Endurance." 103:1-3

Here we have a very compact chapter with a wealth of meaning:- Passing time leads to degeneration, destruction, change and death. There is nothing permanent at the superficial level. But there is something permanent and unchanging behind change and it is this which we must seek. These are defined as faith, good works, truth and endurance - these are the source of Eternal Life. It is also implied that the achieving of this depends on co-operation between people, on mutual stimulation, encouragement and reinforcement.

As for music, the Quran itself, as a recitation, is music.

It can also be pointed out that the Quran allows anything which is not expressly forbidden and makes obligatory only that which is expressly instructed. See 5:87, 7:32, 16:116 and other verses.

Seven Categories can be distinguished:- (i) Always mandatory, (ii) Conditionally mandatory (iii) Recommended (iv) Permissible (v) Disapproved (vi) Conditionally forbidden (vii) Always Forbidden

E.g. injuring may be permitted in self-defence; forgiveness is not always a good thing and retaliation may be better sometimes; stealing food when driven by hunger rather than intention is forgivable.

Music is addictive and often forms obsessions. It can be inspiring, stimulating for good or bad, arousing, debilitating, relaxing, joy-producing, depressing, harmonising, disrupting, enhancing or distracting and it can be associated with beneficial activities or with harmful and depraved ones. It is necessary to be discriminating and selective.

----------<O>----------

49 - Education

"I.D.G." wrote:-

It is an issue that is particularly important to those Muslim educators in the West who are building up Islamic schools, how do sciences etc. fit in with Islam? I think perhaps that the scholars of Andalusia etc. were not knowledgeable in Islam and the sciences, but in Islam and the Islamic sciences. For science that is not Islamic science is secular science, which in turn is atheistic, and we all know what that means. The truest knowledge is that which is taught from an Islamic perspective. As a sister commented the other day on a Muslim education mailing list, that Islamic education should have no beginning middle or end, just one endless stream of Islamic knowledge. This is how we do justice to God and His Cause.

Comment:-

I cannot but agree. Education, understood correctly, not as training or conditioning, but as channelling human psychological energies and faculties in useful directions and enhancing and developing the potentialities contained in man is of the very essence of Islam. The Prophet was primarily an educator.

Allah is one, His Word is One, the Universe is One, and therefore, Knowledge is One and Life is One. Therefore, education must be One and all-comprehensive and fully integrated. This should produce a fully integrated human being - people who are One and not disintegrated into several mutually exclusive compartments. (Quran 39:29)

An Islamic science is a matter of interpretation of facts. There is a single Framework of Reference with an origin, Allah, and all things have meaning with respect to this. A framework like this means that the pursuit of science itself will alter. At the moment it is driven by the needs of commerce and politics which finances most research. Facts are sought, selected, interpreted, organised and applied in order to create a technology for profit, power and prestige. The resulting pollution, wastage, ecological disasters, social disruption, and psychological problems is becoming increasingly obvious. An Islamic science will have to be based on other motives, the love of truth and applied for the psychological and spiritual development of man including the understanding of the Cosmos, himself and his relationship with the Cosmos. This ought also to increase his ability to adjust to Reality.

It is, however, necessary to note that the Western system of life is based on incentives which come mainly from greed, lust, pride, vanity, selfishness, ego-centricism and competition. These are what motivates people and is responsible both for their success and their failings. No alternative system is likely to work unless it also has strong incentives built into it and these must be the spiritual alternatives e.g. those of hope, love, faith, co-operation, the desire for truth, justice, unity, spiritual growth and surrender. The failure to develop either set of incentives leads to stagnation. This is because there is then no inner motivation but only habit, tradition, conditioning, and automatism.

Integration is three dimensional. It is horizontal as described above, but also in another way. It should unite people and bring them into harmony with both the natural world and in their ideologies and cultures. It is also vertical in that learning never stops. Everyone regards it his or her duty to learn and to obtain guidance from those who know. And those who reach the higher rungs on the ladder regard it their duty to help raise those on the lower rungs.

----------<O>----------

50 - Blasphemy

"J.M." wrote:-

As an American, I believe in freedom of speech. Though I do not like blasphemy I will defend the right to do so. I am against laws against blasphemy. And again: we Muslims must question ourselves when someone calling Allah or Muhammad names raises our passion to a fever pitch, but someone starving does not.

Comment:-

There are certainly laws against libel in the West and against indecencies and incitement to racial violence. There are also laws protecting Industrial and political secrecy. The whole idea of freedom of speech is full of hypocrisy and contradictions. Ideas, expressions and impressions can be beneficial, harmful or enabling for individual or the society..

Man shall not live by bread alone. Indeed, though it is important that we have the means to live, life must have a purpose and this is clearly more important. If it has no purpose then the means to live, bread, has none either. The idea that man is in himself, just as he is, the final goal is a secular idea and cannot be justified.

Once it is known what the purpose of life is, then we will know what good and evil are since good is that which facilitates the purpose and evil is that which obstructs it. Freedom (of action or speech) by itself is meaningless. It cannot be a value. Freedom of both kinds are good if they allow the fulfilment of the purpose and bad if they do not.

As for blasphemy, it is an attitude. It may be harmful for the person who has it.

"Verily, he who insults thee (Muhammad) shall be cut off (without hope or results)" Quran 108:3

For instance, he who rejects the messenger rejects the message, and the spiritual growth of the person may depend on the application of the message. But this is not confined to the individual - if it were then there is no problem. It affects others. It is not merely the case that they may be offended and civil unrest and disorder may follow depending on the intensity of the regard and love with which they hold the messenger and his message. One could condemn this as a sign of obsession or idolatry rather than love because words cannot do any harm to the messenger. A person could respond with Quran 109 or Quran 114. But lack of reaction could be a sign of indifference to the message. Some people are internally strong enough not to be affected by what others say. But not all. The fact is that words carry information and this, like any food material or energy can be nutritious, catalytic or poisonous. The development of human beings depends on this nourishment - the soul is a bundle of information or truth.

If this attitude of blasphemy becomes widespread because people get used to it, then the importance of the message also diminishes and soon becomes of non-effect. This reduction of all information to the same level, a background noise, without discrimination, is, of course, not only due to widespread blasphemy but also due to the spread of trivialities by advertisers, propagandist and publicity agents and the proliferation of fantasies by the media in the form of fiction, novels, plays and so on.

May I say also that Muslims take, or ought to take, their values from the Quran. It is irrelevant for them whether or not the American culture or the Indian, Chinese, or Arab cultures agree or disagree, incorporate or reject these values or what their value systems are and what purpose they serve. You cannot serve God and Mammon. We ought also to act from reason not the traditions of a particular area.

----------<O>----------

51 - Views of Evolution

Question:-

Is the Theory of Evolution compatible with Islam?

Answer:-

There are three ways in which we can see evolution:- The religious attitude is that God created all things by His Word spiritually in an instant (55:50). But these actualise or materialise gradually over time. (65:12).

The attitude of Scientific Biology appears to be mechanistic. There are random mutations and there is natural selection from these by the environment. In fact this view is changing to give us a third view.

It is not possible to explain anything in biology without the notion of urges, but only two are generally accepted - the self-preservative and the reproductive. Reproduction could be regarded as another way of overcoming death. This would reduce it to the self-preservative urge which is inherent in the laws of conservation and in inertia (which describes mass). In fact, however, reproduction leads to multiplication and resources being limited, it is this which creates the pressure for competition and the incentive to development, co-operation and unity.

All organisms live in systems in which they are inter-dependant. The system as a whole depends on the organisms in it, and exerts a modifying effect on the organisms. We have a complex system with many feed backs. This system in its turn belongs to a still higher system, and so on. A system would reach a stable unchanging equilibrium except for forces coming from higher systems and those coming from below, ultimately the level of quantum particles of which all things are composed. These also appear to exist as a Universal field in which all particles are interdependent.

Evolution, the constant creation of increasing order in the Universe, seems an inexplicable mystery. If there is an ultimate self-existing Reality to which the Law of conservation applies, then we may suppose that evolution and involution should be equal and opposite processes. Indeed, our minds require this. We become aware when there is a stimulus, and this refers to a contrast or opposition. The stimulus activates us and the purpose of the activity is to reconcile the opposition and restore unity and homogeneity. The opposition constitutes a problem and the activity provides the solution. An explanation is a solution. It is, therefore, evident that an ultimate Homogenous, Self-existing Unity is taken for granted. All changes must then consist of a pair of opposites which cancel each other out. They do not really exist except with respect to each other. The Newtonian Laws of motion are really laws of the mind. All these ideas are inherent in:-

"All things have We created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect. Therefore, flee unto Allah. Lo I am a plain Warner unto you from Him" Quran 51:49-50

We know that the Universe is expanding and it is this expansion which drives evolution. Evolution may be regarded as the increase in order or information. Or is it the introduction of information into it which causes the expansion of the Universe? The development of the sub-systems depends on the greater system to which they belong. Thus the constant introduction of energy from the sun and its absorption by the earth, and also cosmic rays from the rest of the cosmos, provide the increase in order by which evolution on earth takes place.

The increase in order can take three forms:- (a) expansion in the number of organisms, (b) increase in the organisation into groups, herds, societies etc., (c) vertical evolution in inner integration, potentialities and abilities of individuals.

When we examine certain species such as wolves and apes we find that they live in hierarchical groups. There is competition to rise in the ranks. It is only the dominant pair which is allowed to mate and the other members of the group become helpers in the raising of the young. This competition for the dominant position ensures that it is the most vigorous and able which will reproduce. This drives evolution. Now if the only active forces were the self-preservative and reproductive urges then no such hierarchical organisation would have been necessary. There is, therefore, a third urge involved - the self-extensive or in-built evolutionary urge. It manifests itself in the desire to explore and in curiosity and the tendency to overcome difficulties and to learn. It may be a continuity of physical growth into the psychological field after adulthood is reached. It is not only the case that the individuals have to exert themselves, but the social environment created by the organisms themselves is forced to select those which have the greater potentialities.

This urge has three aspects:-

(1) It provides a direction or goal. In conscious man it provides a purpose, an Ideal, a notion of Perfection.

(2) It tends towards increasing Unification - from single cells to communities to multi-cellular organisms to herds, groups, societies, nations and so on.

(3) It leads to increasing awareness, feeling of responsibility (since the fate of the individual is dependant on the community or system to which he belongs) and control - to increasing consciousness, conscience and will.

These three aspects merge in the notion of God.

The Universe not only is, but is also becoming, and it is these urges which drive this process. Life is a problem solving device. But the solution of some problems must lead to other problems until the final Unity is achieved, the one which caused the separation or opposition against the Eternal Self-existing.

On the other hand, in actual fact, nothing ever changes because the opposite forces are always in balance. The contrast and the temporal sequence is only an illusion of the mind, the one which creates the opposition.

These are built-in features in all organisms, including man. But they are often or usually suppressed or dormant. Those in whom these features are more highly developed tend to replace those in whom they are not.

"If He will He can be rid of you and bring instead of you some new creation. That is not a hard thing for Allah." 35:16-17

"Thy Lord is the Absolute, the Lord of Mercy. If He will, He can remove you and can cause what He will to follow after you, even as He raised you from the seed of other folk. Lo! that which ye are promised will surely come to pass, and ye cannot escape. Say (O, Muhammad): O my people! Work according to your power. Lo! I too am working. Thus ye will come to know for which of us will be the happy sequel. Lo! The wrongdoers will not be successful." 6:134-136

----------<O>----------

52 - Ismaelis

"Al23" wrote:-

"Certainly your Master is Allah and His Messenger and those who believe who establish prayer and give charity while they bow. And who ever takes Allah and His Messenger and those who believe as a guardian, so surely the party of Allah will be victorious." Quran 5:55-56

It is unanimously agreed that this ayat was revealed about Imam Ali (AS) at a time when he gave his ring away in charity while he was kneeling during Salat (prayer).

Comment:-

It is true that Ali gave charity while praying, but I have not come across any mention of Ali in the Quran. But according to your article he and his descendants are of paramount importance for Islam.

The above verse and others often quoted are quite general and speak about righteous people or those in whom the light of Allah shines. Now, I have never denied that Ali was a righteous man, but my questions are these:-

(a) Why do you confine the meaning of these verses to Ali?

(b) Who are these people who have unanimously agreed that the Ayat was about Ali, and yet the verse does not mention him?

(c) Why is it, if there was a unanimous agreement, that not all Muslims follow those who believe in the Imamite Succession?

These are all questions which need answers.

"Al23":-

(b) The ayat was revealed at a time in the Mosque when Ali (RA) was bowing in prayer and the beggar was given his ring in charity. The Hadith is related upon the authority of Abu Dharr Ghiffari, one of the handful of Sahabas who did not abandon Ali in favour of the man-made Khalifat. The ayat refers obliquely to Hazrat Ali by recounting his act of giving charity while bowing in prayer. The people who agree unanimously are those who have transmitted the hadith and understand the circumstances under which the ayat was revealed.

There are numerous ayat which record the situations during which various ayat were revealed. many of these are discounted by majority sects, however, in the interests of history they shed a contextual relationship between the ayat and their circumstances.

(c) This is a matter of politics and dogma. The declaration of Ghadir e Khumm is quite clear in naming Ali as the Wali and successor. This hadith has been altered in some sources to substitute the term "Sunnah" for Ahl-ul-Bayt. However, in the longer versions of the hadith the substitution makes no sense.

Historically, the Khalifat of Abu Bakr was elected without the participation of Ali, Abu Dharr and Selman Farsi, who were busy with the funereal preparations of the prophet. This Caliphate eventually became a reversion to tribal values with the Bani Umayya in charge. The succession of the Abbassids was no real improvement. This has all resulted in the Sunni/ Shia division now in currency.

The creation of the Sunnah originated from a need to comply with the example of the Prophet and those of the early years of Islam because the powers that be of the Caliphate had rejected the Imamate. However, only those Sunnah which supported the temporal powers of the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs were supported.

But the hadith collections are replete with a number of Sahih (true) traditions which conflict with majority Muslim praxis. One can only conclude that a codification of practice similar to the Nicene councils of Christianity took place during the early years of Khalifat.

With the exception of the Fatamid Khalifat and the Nizari State, there has not been a temporal power which has upheld the authority of the Ahl-ul-Bayt. However, if you consider that the Fatamid and Nizari states compass some 400 years, they do make a significant episode in the 1400 year history of Islam. The re-emergence of the Ismailis over the past century speaks to the resurgence of prominence of the Ahl-ul-Bayt in the next millennium, one which will most likely rescue the Muslim community from the strife that tears it today.

Taliban, Algerian mujahhid and the like do not reflect the actual dignity and purpose of Islam and reflect a Luddite tendency towards devolution rather than evolution. The Ismaeli Tariqat is the only place in Islam where Muslim values retain coherency with contemporary circumstances.

Answer:-

Thank you for your reply. I understand your position. And if I understand correctly then, even if we disagree, I can see no reason why any one should think you are not Muslims. But I have some problems with it:-

You have not been able to answer my first question - Why the Quranic verses should be general if Ali was specifically meant. This narrowing down of the meaning of the Quran to specific cases only is unacceptable. It impoverishes the Quran while the intention was the reverse - to expand the meaning and make it more universal.

Allah has preserved the Quran so that all Muslims accept it, but I find it incredible that He has done nothing to preserve the Imamate if He wished it to be preserved. He did not see fit to mention it in the Quran in an unambiguous manner.

Though I am sure something rather fishy took place immediately after the death of the Prophet (saw), I find it incredible that the Prophet (saw) was unaware of the quality of the people he was surrounded with and had no inkling what might happen and take precautions against it.

I am inclined to the idea that none of this is an accident, but part of a plan. Allah tests people. Otherwise one would be forced to conclude that Allah did not know what He was doing or that man could pervert His plan. This is too incredible!

Ali certainly accepted Abu Bakr, Osman and Omar before him as Caliphs. When then did his followers divide the Umma by their revolt?

As for the explanation you have given me, is it merely a question of faith or is there some way one could verify what actually happened?

Regarding your assertion:- "The re-emergence of the Ismailis over the past century speaks to the resurgence of prominence of the Ahl-ul-Bayt in the next millennium, one which will most likely rescue the Muslim community from the strife that tears it today."

I am certainly hoping for the regeneration of Islam and looking forward to the coming of someone with sufficient spiritual power to do this, and I think it may well be from the Ahl-ul-Bayt. But there must be tens of thousands of people who can trace their ancestry back to the Prophet and the blood line must now be pretty diluted. Nor does the promise, as in the case of Abraham, include miscreants (2:124). Perhaps, it is a question of inheriting a particular gene, one that is recessive or hidden for some time and then under suitable circumstances re-emerges. Perhaps the succession refers to a spiritual rather than a genetic one. The Quran certainly tells us that the faithful are closer to the Prophet (33:6). The point is why should this person emerge from the Ismaeli sect? Are there no Ahl-ul-Bayt outside this sect?

From what I understand of the Light Verses, 24:35-37, the people in whom the light of Allah is to be found are the righteous elite, what one would call the Prophets and Saints. Does this description fit the Agha Khan? I do not see him as a spiritual person at all. I am assuming that I have understood the Ismaeli position regarding the status of Ali and Imams correctly i.e. that they are not Allah but contain the Light of Allah. If Ismailis do worship the Light in Ali or the Agha khan as some critics insist they do, then they are like Christians who also say they worship God in Jesus or any other Idol worshipper. The following verse applies:-

"Surely pure religion is for Allah only, and those who chose protecting friends besides Him say: We worship them only that they might bring us near Allah. Lo, Allah will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. Allah guides not him who is a liar, an ingrate.... Lo, I am commended to worship Allah, making religion pure for Him only." 39:3,11

Another question:- I understand that Ismaelism is regarded not as a sect but a Tariqa. This would imply that it is like a Sufi order. In that case it is at a higher level than the ordinary Shariat and is not for everyone, but a select group of people who undertake an intensive spiritual discipline. Their doctrines would also have a special meaning, understandable only to those who have been instructed in it. But is all this strictly true? The membership appears to be quite arbitrary as in any other sect.

Does this hope for the coming of the reforming Imam imply that Muslims should do nothing to improve their condition or that they cannot do anything, and that everything will be done for them? I must admit that the condition of the Muslim world does seem to be one which no ordinary man or group of men can alter. But is this promise of a spiritual revival confined to Muslims? May it not refer to mankind in general? Is it not possible that a completely new religion will emerge but it will still be Islam in its real meaning i.e.. "Surrender to Allah", but most of those who call themselves Muslim will not recognise it because they already have a distorted idea of what Islam is?

"NA" wrote:-

"Wa kulla shai'in ashainahu fee Imamin-mubeen" 36:12 which means "And We have vested everything in the manifest Imam."

If this Quranic text and its English rendering is correct and it is, then what does it mean?

Answer:-

This verse, if it means what you say, does not establish who the manifest Imam is or that the word Imam should apply to only a particular person. It could mean any righteous leader of a congregation or community.

The quotation is only part of a verse. It is only Ismailis who translate this part in this way. This makes no sense in the verse as a whole. It is usually translated as follows:-

"Lo! We it is Who bring the dead to life. We record that which they send before them and their footprints (or that which they leave behind). And all things We have kept in a clear record (or Book)." 36:12

If translations without considering consistency were allowed then not only this deviation but almost anything else a reader desired could be read into the Quran.

"NA":-

"One day We shall call together all human beings with their Imams (or Records or leaders or Scriptures). Those who are given their record in their right hand will read it and they will not be dealt with unjustly in the least. And whoever is blind in this world will be blind in the hereafter and yet further from the path." 17:71-72

Answer:-

The above verse has been translated as "One day We shall call together all human beings with their Records." This may even refer to their scriptures (11:17). The word Imam has several meanings. It could simply mean a leader of a congregation, a religious teacher, a Model or example or a Guide. The word Imam is used for a Prophet and has these latter implications in the following:-

"And remember when Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain Commands which he fulfilled, He said: I will make thee an Imam to the Nations. He (Abraham) pleaded: And also from my offspring! He answered: But My promise includes not evil-doers." 2:124

"N.A":-

"Those who disbelieve say: If only some sign were sent down upon him from his Lord! Thou art a Warner only, and for every folk there is a guide." 13:7

Does this make the Holy Prophet the Guide as well? If not, who is the guide. If so explain 16:120-123, 6:162, 28:56, 2:272

Answer:-

Most translations of 13:7 say "Thou art a Warner only and for every folk a guide." This is confirmed by other verses in the Quran. Some translate it as "every folk has a guide." This would refer to the Prophets sent to all people (10:48, 16:36)

16:120-123 and 6:162 - Muhammad (saw) was led by Allah to follow the religion of Abraham, an upright man who was no idolater. This is how Muhammad became a guide for mankind. See 3:32, 33:21 33:45-46

28:56 2:272 But all power comes from Allah - ultimately it is Allah who is the guide. It is not up to Muhammad (saw) whether they will accept or reject the message, even if he loves them. No distinction is to be made between Allah and His messengers, but this refers to their purpose. Whoever obeys the Messenger obeys Allah. 44:80

To confirm:-

"And thus have We inspired in thee (Muhammad) a Spirit of Our Command. Thou knewest not what the Scripture was, nor what the Faith. But We have made it a Light (Noor) whereby We guide whom We will of Our servants. And lo! thou verily dost guide unto a right path." 42:52

In other words Allah is the guide, Muhammad (saw) is the guide and the Quran is the guide. Is this clear?

---------<O>----------

53 - Trinity

"C.H." wrote:-

The major approach in the West can be explained as resulting from fact that God is personal, as well as the fact that God is loving. Note: the claim is that God's personal nature, and his love, are intrinsic to him. He did not need human beings to exist before he could love. Love is a relationship, and persons are also defined by relationships. This implies that personal relationships exist within God. A relationship implies some sort of distinction, since there must be more than one entity to be related to each other. Thus the Western model of the Trinity says that there is just enough of a distinction within God to allow for a personal relationship to exist. You can think of this as three persons, three roles (the original Latin word referred to theatrical roles), or three aspects: no English word is perfect. However these persons are clearly in the context of a single God.

Comment:-

Is the Trinitarian doctrine thought of as describing God or is it thought of as an explanatory device to facilitate understanding?

In Islam God is the Absolute who existed before creation. There are no distinctions in Him. It is true that knowledge is always relative in that it requires us to distinguish between things and then to relate them. Relativity can be reduced to a triad namely two relata and the relating factor. Thus trinity could be regarded as inherent in knowledge. But "Relativity" itself, as an item of knowledge must be relative to something. It is relative to the Absolute, and it is this which is Allah. He is beyond knowledge, and therefore beyond distinctions. This means he is Absolute Unity. The relative triad or trinity is a secondary or derived thing which can only come into existence after creation. Since creation comes out of nothing, then it requires a pair of opposites 0 = +1 -1, and this separation itself isolates the third factor which original kept the two together and now strives to recombine them.

Love is a relationship, requiring a Lover and a beloved. The notion of love is connected with this striving to recombine. It is not at all necessary to suppose that it existed as such before creation. Obviously, here we are speculating, i.e. using limited human intelligence to understand ultimate things. But the point I am trying to make is that it is not at all necessary to arrive at the Trinitarian doctrine. Indeed, if it does not make sense then its purpose as an explanatory device has not been served. We can retain the Unity and keep the entire mystery within the confines of the ultimate self-existent Absolute. The other advantage is that unlike the Trinitarian doctrine the Unitarian one is also a Revelation from God.

"C.H.":-

I have no philosophical training and do not understand the distinction between a description and an explanatory device. My initial guess would have been that Islam would see God as beyond distinctions but not beyond knowledge.

Comment:-

As previously stated Knowledge being relative (a triad), arises from, and is relative to the Absolute (Unity). God creates the universe through his Word or Command. A <-> W <-> U. The Quran states that God surrounds all things with Knowledge and has created everything with Truth. Thus the act of creation and the act of coming into knowledge are related if not identical (at least as far as God's knowledge is concerned).

Human knowledge derives from that of God. Knowledge cannot be invented. It can only be discovered. It is always a revelation. But we know God only from His attributes which He manifests. These can be seen by the heart (8:24). The Attributes (Names) of God which include Compassion, Mercy, Wisdom, Power etc. can be regarded as the categories or forms by means of which we see or interpret the world.

The Quran tells us that "Allah has prescribed Mercy for Himself." 6:12.

The implication appears to be that God conforms to his own rules, at least partially in this area of total reality in order to create the Universe. Nothing (i.e. that which existed before God created it) refers to something where there are no rules or laws and nothing which restricts or differentiates. Everything is possible. We have a world of Potentialities. Actuality, however, requires the coming into existence of some kind of Laws, even if only the Laws of Physics. The above verse, however, tells us about a principle (the Word translated as Mercy has many more connotations than that). It implies a relationship between a subject and object and that there is a measure of tolerance and flexibility in it.

In a sense, the Universe is also sacred since it derives from the Divine Word or Command. But it has a purpose. This purpose is embodied in the Messengers or Prophets who teach human beings to conform to and facilitate the purpose as vicegerents.

These ideas are incorporated in the Shahadah, the Islamic confession of faith:- The word for God is Allah which in Arabic is ALH. The first Shahadah contains no letters which are not found in ALH. It tells us that there is no god but Allah. "no-god - exclude - Allah". which can be interpreted as there is nothing outside Allah or as that which is outside Allah is not god. The Universe is not-god.

The second Shahadah is "Muhammad - Messenger - Allah." This corresponds to the first. Muhammad is not god but corresponds to the Universe. Messenger is the transmitter of the Divine Word. A person is made into a Prophet by the Spirit which carries the Word. The Word is also that by which the Universe is created.

You will see from this how Christian Theology both resembles and differs from the Islamic. But I would also like to point out that this Islamic Theology is part of the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad (saw). The Christian Trinitarian doctrine is not part of the teachings of Jesus or of the New Testament.

To understand the difference between a description of something and an explanatory device consider a graph. It helps in understanding relationships but is certainly not a description of things. Some scientists, an increasingly fewer of them, think that the mathematical formulae they construct are descriptions of what the Universe is really like. Others think that it is merely a convenient way of relating together what we know. There is certainly a great difference between the world we see around us - the mountains and valleys, forests, rivers, weather systems, variety of animals, human constructs:- farms, parks, cities and so on - and the world as described by Science. Indeed, the same object, say a man, can be described differently by physicist, chemist, physiologist, biologist, psychologist, sociologist, economist, and politician. And all these are different from what we experience when we interact with people. The Quran distinguishes between Haqq, Ayn and Ilm - the reality of a thing, the experience of it and the verbal or intellectual description of it.

It is likely that the Trinitarian doctrine is more like the graph, Ilm, while the Islamic one is more Ayn or Haqq. The Trinity may refer to Religion rather than God, because religion is presented to us by God, the Messenger and the Spirit that informs both the Prophet and his followers.

----------<O>----------

54 - Truth

"G. A" wrote:-

Each sentient being (human or otherwise) has a different perspective which results from their own experience, biology, heredity, etc.. For the dung beetle, dung is the most fragrant thing, the most beautiful thing, that which it is attracted to, and the rose is something repulsive. Ibn Arabi says, it would not mean much if the butterfly were to say that the dung beetle is wrong, much as it would be meaningless if the dung beetle were to judge the butterfly. Each has their individual perspective based on their background and each goes about its own way.

Comment:-

There is truth in all this. but not the whole truth. We can look at something, say a mountain, from different sides and come to different conclusions, and it is true that the controversy between these different views is absurd. But here we have the theory of Relativity of Knowledge. This is, of course, also the position of Einstein's Relativity Theory.

In order to get an agreement it will be only necessary for each of the contestants to take up the position of the other. This is often impossible not only because of physical obstructions but also social and psychological ones. Apart from this they may be using words differently to describe their experiences so that their agreement or disagreement is an illusion.

But even if they agree it is a fact that they will not have a correct view of the mountain as a whole (which we can define as the view God has). Those who go round the mountain to see more and more aspects and create a composite picture will be approaching the truth progressively. When two or more people are doing the same thing then their experiences will begin to overlap to an increasingly greater extent. Complete agreement will be obtained only when all of them have the complete picture, and this is identical with the picture which God has. In other words there is unity between people when there is unity with God. This is the meaning and significance of Surrender.

In the Islamic view Truth is absolute not relative. It is that by which the Universe was created. We are required to seek it and grow and expand. Thus, the discussions or arguments which may arise on the lower rungs of the ladder have a function in stimulating this expansion. The controversies at the lower rungs may be dismissed as illusions and futilities, but there is also an inevitable conflict between the broader and the narrower view - between the view of the whole and all partial views. Human beings, of course, only have partial Truths and these may be called Relative Truths because they relate to the body of experiences each person has. Some have a much wider Relative Truth than others and the greater may contain the smaller or overlap it or exclude it.

It is, however, necessary to emphasise that this Whole truth is also flexible. That is, it is a Universal unity underlying the diversity of particular instances - all the different views are included, but seen as a whole we get a different view because common features reinforce each other and contradictory ones cancel.

----------<O>----------

55 - Criticising Muhammad (SAW)

"RI" wrote:-

Regarding a fair article about Islam in an influential U.S. magazine:-

"I am sure this sanitized version to win the western heart will not deal with the mole and pimples of real Islam as we saw and were taught in the schools. Without having seen the articles I can bet any amount of money it will NOT deal with 9 wives of the prophet. It will never tell why the prophet saw fit to marry an 6 year old child. It will never explain why Islamic law requires 4 male witnesses for a crime of rape, or 8 females if men are not present. It will never fully explain why prophet dabbled in medicine and recommended his followers should imbibe camel urine. It will never explain why a just God requires a chaste and pure wife who is divorced through no fault of hers should now go and offer her body to a new husband for one night just so that she can marry her husband again. These are just a few repugnant aspects of this religion which people of the West may find too repulsive."

Comment:-

Some people are interested in the important spiritual aspects of a Religion, and not in relative trivialities, or matters of interpretation and personal judgements and relate to the social, economic and cultural conditions that existed in a certain place and a certain times.

Once it has been shown that the religion contains truth and leads to high spiritual values and that the mission of the Prophet (saw) met with unprecedented success, then it is established that he was a person far superior to ordinary mortals. To judge him with our own narrow minds would be the height of arrogance. The ideas you are expressing above have been derived not from the Quran but the Hadith (not always accurate) and tell us something about your attitude (not about the Prophet) since they are value judgement. You do not find it wonderful that everything he said and did should be so closely recorded? Does this appear as if he was repulsive to people? Could the faith have spread so widely if it was? No, every one of the things you mentioned can have a highly moral interpretation. His marriages for instance could have been for compassionate reasons; the Camel Urine story if true and accurately told (which is doubtful) may refer to a true fact; the necessity for the number of witnesses may have to be understood in the context of the conditions which existed at the time. No, Muslims do not see things as you do and reject the judgement you give.

Suppose now someone came to read the Bible with an already biased mind. He might ignore the moral and spiritual teaching of Jesus (saw) and concentrate on his behaviour and they could reach the conclusion that he was an angry and rather spiteful man full of hatred with ideas of grandeur. To prove their point they would cite the fact that he verbally flayed the Pharisees, that he upset the stalls of the merchants in the temple, that he cursed the fig tree because it gave no fruit and that he made the devils enter the swine and drowned them. They might even say that he was immoral because he stole the corn from the field and mixed with sinners and was insulting to his mother, and that he offended his religion by flouting the Sabbath. Some people have accused him of homosexuality since he was unmarried and others thought that he had mistresses. If you were to present Christianity to Muslims would you mention all this?

You accept the Old Testament, but have you read it? Did you notice some of the behaviour of people who were called the Prophets of God. How many wives and concubines did Solomon have? Who was it that slept with their father? Need I go on?

You really must stop being superficial and negativistic.

----------<O>----------

56 - Universality

"M.S." wrote:-

Some of the rules introduced by the Quran can be justified by the conditions of life which existed at the time. For instance the need for two women witnesses while only one male witness is required or cutting off of the hand of the thief. But can the same rule apply in modern societies? Remember the claim is that the Islamic rules are valid for all times and for all places. You can not have it both ways: on one hand explain Islamic rules as appropriate, even revolutionary in the context of those times and also claim universality for these rules that they are valid for all times and places.

Comment:-

It is true that all Messengers and Scriptures come with messages suitable for the people of the time and place. But they bring a Universal message, a Truth that is everywhere the same, but it is formulated and adapted specifically for those times.

Religion comes to transform people and their societies. There is no point in a Religion that is changed by social trends. We note that Christianity has certainly changed over the years and continues to do so by adapting pagan ideas and practices and changing its morality. This is entirely unacceptable to Islam. The principles and purposes of religion must always remain the same but the formulations and exact methods may have to change to make it more suitable and understandable as societies and their culture and circumstances change. Religions come to transform man and to be transformed - this would make them ineffective and futile.

When something, A, is stated to be universally true or applicable, then we must also determine the conditions, C, to which it applies and the purpose P which it is meant to achieve. Nothing can be true or applicable to all times and places without discrimination. If the same conditions even in the past did not exist then the rule would not apply. If the same conditions should arise in the future, then the same rule again becomes applicable.

The Islamic rules apply to a place where Islamic conditions have been set up. It is obvious to anyone that these rules are not being carried out in Western countries. Therefore, universality cannot have this kind of meaning.

We know that the Quran recommends certain kinds of punishments for certain crimes. Some of these appear extremely severe now but posed no problem to the people in the past. e.g. cutting off the hands of thieves. This rule can only exist within an Islamic context - i.e. that there is Zakat (Charity) and mutual help so that the poor are provided for and there is social justice which all recognise. There is then no excuse for theft. If a person steals because of hunger or deprivation then this is forgiven (5:3). The Society could be regarded as blameworthy if this happened. Usually the first offence is not punished but the rule applies to those who persist. Note that the verse which makes this exception is the one which establishes that religion has been perfected in Islam. This is no accident.

The Quran also teaches kindness and forgiveness. There is, therefore, no sin involved if the punishment is not carried out or a less severe one is given. Generally speaking the severity of the punishment reflects and is reflected by the communal disapproval of the crime. It has an educational value. What is more, the punishment has a deterrent value. If it stops the crime then the punishment abolishes itself. The apparent cruelty turns out to be the kinder thing because it has prevented all the suffering which the increase of crime would have caused. On the other hand excessive compassion leads to its own negation. The current habit of Western governments of supporting the promiscuous or irresponsible single mother, for instance, has encouraged the proliferation of irresponsible sexual relationships and the birth of so many deprived and inadequately brought up children. Suffering has been increased by compassion.

The Quran tells us that:-

(1) It is a guidance,

(2) That there is no compulsion in religion,

(3) Instructs us to reflect, ponder and think,

(4) Demonstrates how changes can be brought about by gradual changes in rules - e.g. the case of alcohol consumption,

(5) Teaches that actions are judged by conditions and intentions.

(6) Tells us that we are to avoid the greater sins and not worry too much about the lesser ones. These greater sins are not those ordinarily regarded as sins but have to do with the way our mind works.

(7) Teaches that it is more important to go by the essentials rather than the accidentals, to keep the goal in mind rather than adhere to the forms or means.

The Quran is not just a source of Law - there are few laws in it - but also an educational system, a source of principles which have to be understood and intelligently applied. It is also the source of higher order truths designed to open our minds, correct its malfunctions and facilitate psychological development. The higher man so formed will see things quite differently.

----------<O>----------

57 - Comparing Christianity and Islam

"XAN" wrote:-

The Quran's claims are amazing. It is supposed to have been delivered from heaven by Gabriel, dictated word by word precisely and accurately as GOD'S direct word to man - totally unadulterated. Therefore, it is perfect in every respect: linguistically, historically, scientifically, and logically. But also, it is not to be subject to critical analysis. Christianity does not make such claims.

Comment:-

Religions provide us with values. God or His Word are regarded not only the source of all Truth, but also all meaning and values. When something is the criterion or standard by which things are judged then it cannot itself be criticised.

Whereas Jesus is the Word of God for Christians, the Quran is the Word of God for Muslims. The difference is this:- Christians form what might be called a personality cult, their attention is on the messenger whereas Muslims are expected to follow the teaching, the message. Thus Christianity is named after a person and Islam is named after an idea or state of being. There are advantages and disadvantages in each approach:-

It is obvious, for instance, that Jesus (saw) is no longer with us and this is why Christians are forced back to the accounts of Jesus in the various Gospels. But these are not the Word of God. The Quran, on the other hand is with us permanently. But because it is a Book it is inflexible unlike a person. However, it has a general or universal aspect such that it can be adapted and applied to different circumstances. But the awareness of this requires a well developed mind. Muslims rely on scholars or on pious or saintly person or Imams to interpret it. This tends to create sects.

Because Christianity is based on a person, Jesus was later replaced by a priesthood and an organised Church. The Pope or Head of the Church becomes a substitute Christ. The Priest and the Church are mediators between man and God and do most of the religious ceremonies on behalf of man. The Church was, therefore always able to alter and dictate dogma and practices. This can and has led to abuses and the erosion of the original message. This is not the case with Islam. It is direct surrender to Allah without a mediator. Thus there is no priesthood and no organised Church. Each person is his own priest and responsible for his own salvation. The result, however, is that Islam is both more individualistic and rigid. Each can interpret the Quran in his own way, but since it is forbidden to attribute to God what He has not revealed there is a tendency to adhere to the word of certain scholars. The doctrines and practices cannot be changed. But times and conditions of life do change and the way things are understood and applied changes accordingly.

Though Islam does make provision for discussion and agreement and allows appropriate interpretation and application, this fact has not been properly understood. No adequate methods have been developed which counter the tendency to sectarianism and disintegration inherent in the individualism which has plagued Islam and derives from even before the coming of Islam. It is only the Prophet (saw) himself who managed to unite the people.

The Quran is essentially a recitation rather than a book of paper and ink. This means that it is not to be identified with the words, and perhaps not even with the meaning of the words but with the experience of it and the transforming force contained in it. And, indeed, it is this which is mainly responsible for the spread of Islam. It is this also which keeps the Muslims united rather than an organised Church or Priesthood. The Quran, from this point of view, is regarded as a part of the Preserved Tablet which might be understood as part of the Blue Print on which the Universe was based. That is, it derives from the same creative force which created the Universe (the Word of God) and its revelation at a particular stage in the history of creation was inevitable. It is also regarded as "A reminder unto Creation" and a "revelation into the heart". In other words it is an introduction into consciousness of the awareness of the nature and significance of creation when the capacity for consciousness has reached a certain level.

When properly understood these ideas are not really as fantastic as may be supposed on first hearing (when fantastic = unbelievable). The explanation can be quite naturalistic. It is a fact that there was nothing in the world at the time of the Prophet which even through hind sight could explain the arising of the phenomena of Islam. It was like a bolt from above which in an unprecedented short time changed the course of history and transformed the whole world. And what was responsible for this? Just one man with a single book, the Quran. This is a miraculous event by any standards.

"XAN":-

I agree with all of this. However, would it not also be accurate to say that the personality of Jesus of Nazareth is himself the message?

Answer:-

Yes. This is the Islamic position. He is a Word, Spirit and Revelation of God.

"XAN":-

The major keys to the Christian faith are what we believe to be the historical death and resurrection. For us, that is what makes the message true. Say if Jesus died on the cross and did not rise, then his message would be fruitless and even in vain. "Without faith in the cross, faith in the risen Christ lacks its distinctive character and decisiveness. Without faith in the resurrection, faith in the crucified Jesus lacks confirmation and authorization."

Answer:-

Jesus did not teach that salvation was by belief in his death and resurrection, but by obedience to God, the Father in Heaven.

"Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN." Matthew 7:21-23

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Matthew 16:24

The cross here cannot mean that his followers should be crucified, but that they should take up the task of purifying themselves spiritually.

The Islamic position is that we do not deny that it appeared as if Jesus was crucified and resurrected. We take it not literally but symbolically. Jesus was indeed taken up to God or exalted after worldly humiliation. Death and resurrection are regarded as spiritual events - a transformation - to die to this mundane world and its lower concerns and to come alive in "heaven", in a higher state of consciousness; or to kill the ego and allow the spirit of God to enter instead.

The Gospels tell us that the disciples were in despair when they thought Jesus had been killed. But when he reappeared among them their faith revived. The doctrine of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus most probably refers to this.

"XAN":-

Thus, Christian truth is not something mystical and contemplative. Rather, Christian truth is static. It is not to be abstract; it is to be acted out. It is truth pursued, verified, and tested - the objective relativised for humanity's sake.

Answer:-

Unfortunately I do not understand this terminology, unless you mean that we too must die to this world and be resurrected. This condition is known as "Surrender". I know also that this is symbolically achieved in Christianity by "taking in" Christ through the sacrament of the bread and wine. Obviously, the ceremony has no value unless there is an appropriate mental state when the ritual is performed. Baptism is, of course also not just washing away of sins, but drowning and being raised anew. You might be interested in the Islamic substitute for these rituals - they are all contained in the ablutions and in the posture changes of prayer.

"XAN":-

For faith, Jesus Christ is with every believer, and we are empowered by the Spirit to follow him in submission to the Father. A problem I see with the Quran is that many people can have many different interpretations of it. However, in the case with Jesus, you can not change the historical fact of who Jesus was. Indeed, we do run into problems with interpretations of exactly what happened, but the person of Christ always stays the same. Being that the Muslims claim the Quran always stays the same [I doubt this historically however], I would say we are on equal ground.

Answer:-

The cases are not different. The Quran is Eternal and Permanent. The Muslim is required to differentiate between his interpretation or view or experience of the Quran from the Quran itself. Different Christians see Jesus differently, and interpret the Bible or experience it differently. However, the Christian Bible is already an interpretation by the various human writers. Christians too ought to differentiate between their interpretations and the reality. There would then be no conflict between Christians and Muslims, at least about Jesus.

"XAN":-

You must remember two things:

1. Not all Christians believe in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. In fact, many catholic scholars admit that the hierarchy isn't essential to Christianity. The leading catholic theologian alive today, Hans Kung, even says that the priesthood is not necessary. Protestant Christianity [which I adhere to] has thrived focusing on personal relationship with God and Jesus Christ. The priesthood and hierarchy of the Roman-Catholic Church is the product of the evolution of many centuries and is not at all necessary to the faith.

2. Though the Church has had its problems, we do have the power to change and reform. As a dynamic body, we have done so quite often and continue to do so. We are still changing. Islam too has a long history of corruption and reform. Sometimes the main forces where dynamic leaders, and at other times the change came from the Ulema. Is there not also confusion in Islam what the original message is? The Quran is clear somewhat in regard to law, but on other matters in which the Quran is vague, the hadith serve to make clarifications in regard to the Sharia. Still, things are very unclear when one studies the traditions closely. Many Muslims today claim that even some of the most authentic collections contain many spurious sayings.

Answer:-

Originally it was a firm belief that the Church should be built on Peter. Though the Reformation (which I believe took place because of the entry of Islamic ideas into Europe) caused Protestant churches to break away from the Catholics they did retain a Priesthood. Modern Christian theologies are much closer to Islam then formerly. This may be because the clash with Islam caused some Theologians in the past deliberately to distance themselves from what seemed too Islamic. The same but opposite tendency also affected Muslim theologians - they tended to exaggerate the differences.

Yes there has been corruption owing to mixing of secular or worldly concerns with spiritual matters. And there have been reforms. It affects all religions since they have to deal with human beings conditioned by this world. But the changes and reforms I am speaking about are not the corruptions and their rectification, but of adaptation to changing conditions of life brought about by science, technology and organisation. Christians can delegate this function to the priesthood of the organised Churches. Islam, except in some sects such as Shiahs, do not have a priesthood and this function is to be left to Scholars. There is, however, a big difference in quality between scholars. Some know a lot but understand little, some are very pious in faith and practice and some are less so.. Some adhere very rigidly to the letter but ignore the spirit and so on. Islam requires that the interpreter is not just one that knows but is also pious and able - he should be learned. This term has a much wider meaning than scholarship. Fortunately Islam is not confined to the Shariah (the Law), but has two other layers that of Tariqat (the Way) and Haqiqat (the Truth). It is hoped that those transformed to a certain extent by the Shariat can enter the next stage, the discipline of the Tariqat and then move up. The interpretation of the Quran and even of many Hadith will vary according to the spiritual quality of the person studying them.

It is true that many Hadith cannot be relied upon to be true. Since they are isolated accounts of what someone might have overheard without knowing the context or situation. It is also not certain what was meant or whether their application was specific to a particular person, event or place or more universal. But there is also a tradition of oral transmission. And there is scholarship.

"XAN":-

Christianity does not teach the superiority of any believer over another. However, just like there is the Ulema', mullahs, imams, Caliphs, and Sufi saints so there are also in Christianity offices like apostles, deacons, teachers, etc. God has assigned leaders to guide the community. Is Islam really that individualistic? I would say not as individualistic as Western Christianity. In my studies, I have observed a really large emphasis on the Umma and not on the single Muslim. Concerning working out our own salvation as separate people, our scripture says: ". . . work out your own salvation in fear in trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." Philippians 2:12

Answer:-

Yes. There is a difference between what the scriptures teach and what people practice. The emphasis of Islam (the teaching) is certainly on the Umma. All who are united to Allah through submission (Islam) are united to each other in a brotherhood. But the Umma has disintegrated owing to individualism and sectarianism. The problem is that individualism also produces its own opposite - clinging to some source of identity. This should have been Allah. All else is idolatry. Instead, it is to some sect or teacher. The same is, of course also true in Christianity.

The quotation you have given us above and many others I could give show that fundamentally there is no essential difference between Christianity and Islam, but there is a difference in formulation and practice. But this is exactly what the Quran claims.

"XAN":-

I found it strange that so early in history Islam saw a civil war in the community. Traditionally, disputes in Christianity were settled with councils and not bloodshed - the council is documented in Acts 15 of the New Testament. Only until later on when Christianity unfortunately merged with the government (the MOST corrupting event in our faith's history) did bloodshed arise over disagreements.

Answer:-

Yes that is very unfortunate. Obviously people had not yet been sufficiently transformed. The expansion of Islam through the population was too fast. However, it is necessary to note another difference between Christianity and Islam:- While Muhammad (saw) was teaching in Mecca, his mission was similar to that of Jesus (saw). But, as also promised by Jesus, the Kingdom of God was to be established on earth also. Thus, the disappearance of the Prophet (saw) from Mecca and his reappearance in Medina reproduces the death and resurrection of Jesus (saw). This was the beginning of the second phase of the Prophet's mission. Islam entered a political phase. He established a theocratic State. (Jesus on his return is to do the same). As was the case in Christianity when it acquired a political role as the established Church in the Roman Empire, it is the politics, the worldly force, which later corrupted Islam (but mainly in its outer manifestation).

"XAN":-

Except in the case of Indonesia, most conversions to Islam were due to the colonization of conquered lands by the conquering people. Where colonization did not occur, Islam did not become the dominant religion - as in the case of the Mughal Empire of India. Cultures pretty much remained non-Muslim for hundreds of years before they became Muslim. This was usually due to the reluctance of the Arab-Muslim elite to welcome converts, fearing that more Muslims would undermine their elitist status. Islam only slowly became the religion of the people after Islam came to be related to the cultural identity of the people.

Answer:-

I do not think this is quite fair. There were certainly some conquests but this was seldom attended by forced conversions. The conversion of Persians and Turks cannot be attributed to conquests. The Mughal king such as Akbar was known for more than mere tolerance of Hinduism. Under most Muslim rulers Christians, Jews and people of other faiths found greater security than elsewhere. Muslims ruled Spain for many centuries without forced conversions. When the Mongol hordes under Chenghis Khan and others had almost destroyed the Muslim Civilisation, these barbarians were converted to Islam - this cannot have been done by the sword. Indeed, Islam saved Europe from a similar destruction by the Mongols. There are said to be a hundred million Muslims in China, but no Muslim armies invaded China to make these conversions. But what you say about the desire to protect an elitist status no doubt played its role. We are dealing with human beings and the desire for wealth, power and prestige affects all human beings unless they have become saints.

"XAN":-

The Bible itself is also a reminder to our faith. Its sacred stories and myths have the power to call people to devotion and change lives by merely reminding them of their creator. It inspires hope, calls to action, and helps us to truly be human as God meant us to be.

Answer:-

Yes, certainly.

"XAN":-

I would just like to end by telling you why I am a Christian. By following Christ man in the world today can truly humanly live, act, suffer and die: in happiness and unhappiness, life and death, sustained by God and helpful to men.

Answer:-

Yes, true. The same can be said about all the Prophets of God including Moses (saw) and Muhammad (saw) and of course their respective scriptures. It is, however, necessary to ascertain that one has understood their teachings correctly. People usually follow an interpreter, e.g. a theologian in order to understand what the Founder said, e.g. Jesus. Why is it difficult to accept Muhammad (saw) as such an interpreter of what Jesus really taught?

"XAN":-

Concerning Jesus, it is well known that the Quran refers to Jesus as al-masih, i.e. the Messiah. Upon hearing this, I have to ask-why? If Jesus was indeed, the Messiah, a. k. a. the Son of David, a. k. a. the Son of Man, why was he the messiah? Judaism makes it clear that the Messiah shall be the deliverer of Jews, and through the Jews, he shall deliver all of humanity.......

Answer:-

The word Messiah and Christ are equivalent. Islam does recognise Jesus as the Messiah and Christ. The mission of Jesus (saw) was to the Jews as the New Testament confirms. But the kind of deliverance Jesus was to provide was of a spiritual nature. As Moses (saw) took the Israelites out of the physical or worldly bondage in Egypt, Jesus was to take them out of a mental bondage of ritualism, dogmatism, legalism etc. as well as to egotism etc. The Jews according to the Quran were a priesthood to Mankind. That is, they carried Monotheism down the ages and influenced many peoples.

"XAN":-

The redemption brought by the Messiah is now seen in two ways, justification and apocalypse. What is justification? Jesus was condemned - he literally became a curse because of the cross (Dt. 21:23 and Ga 3:13). He was accursed by both the Law of Moses and the Society around him. All opposed him, and they won. The cross proved he was wrong and failed - or did it? That is what the resurrection message reveals. The very thing that wasn't to be expected by the Jews: that this crucified Jesus, despite everything, was right! Islam, however, denies all these things.

Answer:-

No. Islam does not deny it. If you read my previous reply you will see that what you say is more or less the Islamic view. Jesus (saw) was humiliated but triumphed; he was taken up to heaven. His message or influence continued. You cannot kill the spirit and word of God. Christianity was persecuted but became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. These are facts. As far as Islam is concerned the physical death and crucifixion of Jesus are not significant for salvation but application of his teachings are. Death and resurrection are spiritual events as Jesus himself taught. We have to die to this world and its concerns to be reborn (John 3:3-7). Just as the misunderstanding of the Jews about the kingdom of God had to be rectified by Jesus (saw), the misunderstanding of Christians about the nature of resurrection had to be rectified by Muhammad (saw). I know you will find this hard to understand.

"XAN":-

I recognize the similarity of Muhammad's early days preaching in Mecca and al-Ta'if. However, I have come to view Medina differently. I see the hijrah and the cross as the ultimate contrast. Jesus, too, could have fled from Jerusalem where many sought his life.

Answer:-

Jesus did say he had to go to his other sheep. His mission among the Jews had a limited objective. The time was not ripe to create a Theocratic or Theo-centric nation or Civilisation. This can also be seen from the Prophecy contained in Daniels interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Daniel 2). The stone (or Prophet) does not come down from out of the Mountain until the Roman Empire splits into two (the legs) and then into the toes (several kingdoms).

"XAN":-

Muhammad and Jesus also understood the Kingdom of God in different forms. I think that Muhammad understood God's rule in a more earthly sense than Christ. For Jesus, God's cause would not come by violent revolutionary actions and the setting up of theocratic states. As Jesus said to the High Priest: "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world" John 18:36

Answer:-

You are mistaken. The Hereafter in Paradise is most certainly emphasised in the Quran. But it is here on earth that conditions must be established where the spiritual discipline can be practiced that will lead to Paradise, i.e. nearness to God.

Your quotation proves that Jesus (saw) was not meant to create a Theocentric kingdom on earth, but the Lord's Prayer taught by Jesus certainly looks forward to such a kingdom, so does the saying "the meek shall inherit the earth". A reading of the Book of Revelations shows that such a kingdom will certainly be established and not peacefully either. But obviously it cannot be established until there is a spiritual change in human beings. If you have read the Quran you could not possibly have missed the fact that the whole of it is about submission to God and about the Hereafter. Christians usually criticise it for being too other worldly rather than worldly. It all depends on which parts you select for attention.

If my reading of both the New Testament and the Quran and several other world scriptures (also some ancient Egyptian accounts) is correct then this earthly Theocentric system, an example of which was established by the Prophet Muhammad (saw) will be run by a spiritual elite, known in the Quran as the Foremost, probably prophets and saints.

"XAN":-

I am personally concerned with many of the teachings of Muhammad, and even of Moses some times, that seem very dehumanizing to women and minorities. I know that in the case of Moses the heart of the law was lost, and that is what Jesus objected to. He always taught that the law was there for the sake of man and that man did not exist for the sake of the law. In other word, whenever the law becomes a dehumanizing, oppressive force it is made null and void. God's cause is never a law; rather, God's cause is the well-being of humans themselves. Do you think in the future that Muslims would ever concede in dropping oppressive teachings that are often even part of the Quran so that equal rights and status may be shared by women and non-Muslims?

Answer:-

Here we go again! We are discussing the teachings of religion. There is no doubt that in practice people do not live up to their religion specially when circumstances are stacked up against them, or do so to various degrees. The New Testament teaching about women is not so very different from the Quranic, but Islam gives them better legal rights. The Islamic laws must be seen in relation to the whole of the Islamic system. You cannot isolate one part and judge it by using alien value systems. Islam does consider men and women equal before God, but not similar. Each has his or her own function, and the God made difference is not to be eroded without serious consequences. It considers marriage as half of religion and the family as the "factory" where spiritual excellence may be created.

Law is most certainly required to run a State and it must be suitable for the condition of the people and for the purpose, which in the case of Islam is spiritual development and not simply control of people. But Islam is not just a system of Law (even this is not properly understood or applied), but it is also an educational system and a spiritual development system. Indeed, we are told that there are 7 paths above us and that we must travel from stage to stage.

"AX" wrote:-

I think that the concept of "Holy Trinity" is one of the major differences between Christianity and Islam. I think it is the BIGGEST difference, and if that is resolved I can see Christians and Muslims practically hugging each other. Then comes the belief that Muhammad is ALSO a prophet.

Comment:-

I think the biggest difference is the Christian belief that Jesus is God which cannot be justified from the words of Jesus. Christians deify him but do not believe him when he says he was only sent by God (John 17:3-6 and 12 etc). The Trinity is only a consequence of this. If the doctrine of the Divinity is given up, then the doctrine of Trinity will also be abandoned. It will then also be clear that Muhammad who pointed out these errors is also a Prophet of God.

In fact, Christians already know that Jesus was called "Emanuel" which means "God with us" and not God. He represented God on earth.

The Quran does not, in fact, denounce the idea of Trinity, but what it says is "Say not Three! Cease! It is better for you. Allah is only one God." 7:171

In other words it denounces the idea of three gods. One of these is regarded as Jesus. The Quran denies that Jesus is a god and this is confirmed by Jesus. He is one who has been sent and does as he is commanded (John 6:38, 8:28, 7:16, 12:49, 14:31, 13:16) Another is the Holy Spirit. But this is the Spirit of God and not a separate god. Christians also think that Jesus is the Word of God and that the Word is a separate God. But this seems to be a mistranslation of John 1:1. The correct translation is probably "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Divine (or God's)" not "The Word was God."

The word Trinity could simply mean three aspects or attributes - i.e. Transcendental. Imminent and Personal. Or it could refer to Religion which is presented by God, the Messenger and the Spirit. Allah has 99 attributes, but Muslims do not say that each of these is a separate god. The Quran says Jesus was "A Word and A Spirit" from Allah. There is, therefore, no objection to the idea that the coming of Jesus is a proof or manifestation of God's power. But the idea that God incarnated is a pagan superstition unless taken symbolically - e.g. a policeman or judge can be said to be an embodiment of the Law. A study of John 1:12-13 and John 3:5-7 clearly indicates that spiritual and not physical matters were being discussed.

The reason why the Christian Church needed to deify Jesus was in order to support their doctrine that the sacrifice and death of Jesus removed all sins. This, of course, could not be said about an ordinary man. It had to be a god. Then it could be believed that people need only believe in Jesus and become Christians and be saved without doing any thing. This was very convenient for the Church - it brought in converts and gave them wealth and power. But it made the whole religion completely ineffective. The Church used to sell forgiveness and absolution.

Few people noticed that if Jesus was crucified and resurrected then there was no sacrifice either! Nor did they notice that even if the Resurrection of Jesus is proof that there will be a resurrection after death (and Baptism is a symbol for this), it does not really help anyone because they could then go to hell rather than paradise. Nor have they noticed that the Bible teaches that whatever a man sows that he will reap and that Jesus himself told the people that only those who did the will of God would be saved (Matthew 7:21-23)

It seems, therefore, that it is this idea of vicarious atonement which is the main difference between Islam and Christianity. All other differences follow from this.

The controversy is not between Islam and the teachings of Jesus, but between the interpretations of some Christians on the one hand and both Islam and the teachings of Jesus on the other. But there is much more in the Quran than there is in the New Testament.

----------<O>----------

58 - Answer to a Militant Christian

Joe wrote:-

Face it, Islam could be a false religion. Two thirds of the people on this planet think so. Are you even open to this fact of logic? This letter is addressed to open minded Muslims who are willing to examine the evidence against Islam with objectivity and intellectual honesty. Are you willing to examine the Truth claims of Islam? Are you willing to entertain the possibility that Allah is a false god, Muhammad a false prophet and the Quran a false book?

Comment:-

Did it not occur to you that what you say can be turned against you also? That your interpretation and understanding could be false? The writer of this article obviously misunderstands Islam and then criticises his own misunderstanding!!! Are you open to the possibility that Christianity is false and that you are worshipping a false god or committing idolatry?

Yes. Muslims want to understand the Quran. But your question is based on pure nonsense. We describe Allah as the Creator and controller of the Universe, the Absolute One, the Self-existing, Omni-potent, Omniscient and Omni-present, the Origin of all, in short the Real, the True. We define the false as that on which people call other than Allah. Since it is Prophet Muhammad (saw) and the Quran which tell us this truth, then they are also true.

Joe:-

If you react to these questions by getting angry, what does this reveal about you? Are you open or closed to the Truth? If Islam is false, why in the world would you want to continue to believe in it?

Answer:-

I react by feeling sorry for your prejudices and self-deception which you hide under the guise of reasonableness. You have not asked yourself or Christians the same questions. I get angry because these prejudices lead you to a campaign of hate and distortion which cause a great amount of conflict, persecution and suffering. And because you assume that all Muslims are stupid enough to fall for such naive arguments and cannot justify their position.

Joe:-

If you are still with us at this point, hopefully you feel the same as we do: There is nothing more important in this life than the Truth. It is worth whatever price we have to pay. We will follow it wherever it leads us.

Answer:-

This is the Islamic position, not the Christian. Love is more important to real Christians. But if you abandon this position then you will be motivated by hate or mere addiction, but continue to attribute your motives to love.

Joe:-

Here are some crucial questions

1. The Quran refers to people, places, things, and events which are nowhere explained or defined within the Quran itself.

2. These things were not explained because it was assumed that the people hearing the Quran already knew of them.

3. Mecca was a pre-Islamic pagan centre of worship where the idol al-ilah, a moon god was worshipped.............. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Answer:-

Similar things can be said about Christianity or any other religion. There were genuine religions in past which became corrupted. Does not Christianity contain Hebrew doctrine and practices and those from ancient Babylon and Egypt and other pagan sources such as Mithraism. Are not the Christmas and Easter festivals originally pagan ones? But the difference is this:- That the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and the Quran purified the religion by removing the malpractices and misinterpretations. Muslims do not worship Al-ilah but Allah and this word has quite a different meaning from what the pagans understood by al-ilah. Read the Quran to discover how Allah is described in it.

But one would have thought an intelligent man could see all this. It is usually the unintelligent who have the entrenched prejudices which make it necessary for them to attack what they cannot understand, because iIt makes them feel insecure and inadequate.

Joe:-

Regardless of your religion, there is the inescapable fact that we have all failed to live up to our religious convictions. Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc., it doesn't really matter. We have all violated whatever moral standards we have adopted.

Answer:-

Really? Christians too? Is it not your doctrine that Christians are cleansed of their sins by Jesus? How is it that the followers of what you call false religions have moral standards? Do they not come from God?

Joe:-

Two problems we all face. First, our hearts are prone to evil. Thus we find it very easy to feel lust, jealousy, hatred, anger, and greed. Even when we try to be good, our own heart will betray us. Some people think that if they do good deeds that this will change their hearts and clear their record. But can good works really change anyone's heart? We tried it and found that no matter how much good we did, evil was still present in our hearts.

A Mediator is needed. Since we have sinned, we are not allowed to come into the presence of a holy God. But if we cannot go to God for forgiveness, how will we obtain forgiveness? If good deeds will not work, how will we ever enter paradise? What if someone went before God on our behalf? What if there was a mediator who could intercede on our behalf? Even if this mediator could enter God's presence, how could he clear the record of all our sins? He would have to pay off our debt to justice somehow. One obvious way is for him to take upon himself the punishment due to us. In other words, in order for us to escape the fires of hell, he would have to smother the flames of hell in his own bosom. This mediator would have to be the bridge between heaven and earth and between God and man. A mediator who is not quite God or not quite man is a bridge broken at either end. We need someone to represent God to us and us to God. This mediator has to be both God and man at the same time or salvation is not possible.

Answer:-

The reason for the failure to cleanse your heart is that you are following wrong doctrines and wrong practices and your social system is one in which these sins are encouraged instead of the virtues. Given correct guidance, appropriate practices and social conditions your heart will certainly be cleansed. The failure itself should have indicated the falseness of what you follow. Instead you make excuses and change the doctrine. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" Galatians 6:7

From the Islamic point of view your argument is silly, quite illogical, it is an excuse for disobeying God and doing nothing

God is everywhere and is aware of us. It is God who forgives. The argument you give tells us that we must first ask and be forgiven by a Mediator and the Mediator will then ask God to forgive us. Now both the mediator and God can either forgive or not. Will the mediator forgive people what God would not? Or is it the case that God is compelled to forgive if the mediator asks whether God likes it or not? Or is God unable to forgive - he wants his "pound of flesh" which the mediator must provide? But how does the mediator provide this? We are told that he died for us, but also that he was then resurrected. Where then is the sacrifice? How does his death get rid of our sins? Have people ceased to sin since the sacrifice? If it is acceptance of Jesus that leads to forgiveness, the clearly it is acceptance of his teaching which is the word of God. In other words it is repentance that leads to salvation.

There is no need for this convoluted thinking. We ask for forgiveness and if we repent sincerely and make amends then Allah has promised forgiveness. We die to sin and are then resurrected to spiritual life.

Joe:-

Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. He brings us into the very presence of God.

Answer:-

So this teaching of yours abolishes the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23, John 9:31 and Gala 6:7. You wish us to accept your word and not that of the Scriptures? It is very comforting and an easy way out, but I thought you want the truth not comfort. Yes certainly it is by the grace of God that one is forgiven, but faith in God is required. But "Faith without works is dead." Did you not know about this?

Joe:-

Haven't you ever wondered why the God of Islam seems so distant - so far off? Without a mediator, God is far off and distant. A distant God is only feared, not loved. He is unapproachable and seems far away. Don't you see the need for a mediator to pay off your sins and clear your record? Does Islam offer you a mediator to take away your sins? If Islam has no mediator and no atonement, does it have any gospel, i.e. good news?

Answer:-

No. The question is like "Why do you beat your wife." It assumes you beat her. God is not remote. He is closer to us than our own life artery (Quran 50:16) and comes between a person and his own heart (Quran 8:24), and His spirit is within us (23:9). It is your idea of God which makes Him remote and this is why you have the need to deify His messenger. But God still remains remote to you. This is entirely unnecessary for Muslims. But they do have a guide and a channel to God in Muhammad (saw) and indeed, all other Prophets. Islam offers us direct contact with Allah, and no mediator is required. The Prophets (including Jesus and Muhammad) are a bridge between God and man. Islam does have a gospel (good news) that Allah has provided us with Prophets (and this includes Jesus) and Scriptures to guide us to Him and that He forgives sins to those who repent.

Joe:-

Dear Friend, Islam leaves you high and dry with no way to deal with the corruptions of your heart here on earth or the record of your sins in heaven. It does not build a bridge between you and God. It does not have a mediator who is both God and man. With no Saviour and no atonement, it can never give you any sure hope of heaven.

Answer:-

Ignorance especially when deliberately cultivated is not a virtue, does not promote intelligent behaviour,and does not lead to enlightenment. We are spared from doing damage to our faculty for reasoning and from obsession.

----------<O>----------

59 - Fundamentalism

"M2" wrote:-

Fundamentals = the basics. I adhere to the basics in Islam - the five pillars:- shahada, salah, sawm, zakah, and hajj, so therefore I am a fundamentalist and I am proud of it! I will say so even to someone on the street. I am not ashamed of being a Muslim as I even wear hijab. I am not one of those people who believe the anti-Islam propaganda of equating the word fundamentalism with something bad. I will not be a moderate, someone who compromises to please the Islam haters.

Comment:-

Good for you. But please note four other things also:-

(1) Avoid sectarianism like the plague (2) Continue to increase your knowledge (3) Strive in the Way of Allah. (4) Endurance. All these are Islamic duties

Question:-

What is the Way of Allah.

Answer:-

The Way of Allah is to obey Allah and to follow the Spirit of Allah within one, to cultivate consciousness, conscience and will. It is to strive against evil and for the good within oneself and outside oneself, and to do all things for the sake of Allah.

Man is a vicegerent. He has to act in the service of Allah. This takes three forms:- Towards the society or community, towards oneself and towards the earth. See 5:35, 2:112,148,184, 2:205, 7:74, 3:110 4:135, 76:9, 17:7, 91:7-10

----------<O>----------

60 - Quran & Hadith

"YF" wrote:-

Are you a "Quran-only" person? Do you belong to that sect? You never quote anything from Hadith?

Answer:-

I have been attacked by both "Quran-only" people and those who consider the Hadith to be sacred. A "Quran-only" person called me an "Anti-Quran Muhammad worshipper". He quoted some Hadith which he could not understand in order to prove that Hadith contradict the Quran and each other, that they encourage sectarianism, are filthy, evil and come from Satan. He concludes that no follower of Hadith are Muslim, thereby advocating a Quran-only sect.

You appear to be under a false impression. I am NOT a "Quran-Only" person, nor a Sunni or Shia or member of any other sect. I am a Muslim who takes the Quran as the infallible word of Allah and Muhammad (saw) as a Messenger of Allah, through whom the Quran came to us. This is because my study of the Quran and the life of Muhammad finds harmony and self-consistency with my experiences and my inherent nature. I, therefore, accept the word of Muhammad that the Quran is a revelation from Allah, and I also accept the word of the Quran that Muhammad is a good example. I also take the word of the Quran and Muhammad that he was a human being who made mistakes but being a Prophet, was corrected by Allah.

I accept the word of the Quran that the Quran (its teachings as originally delivered in the form of a Recitation) will be preserved. This promise does not cover the Hadith. The Hadith, though they contain the Sunna of the Prophet, are variable in quality, reliability and interpretation. I am cautious about them but I do not reject them all. We know about the history of the Prophet and the revelation of the Quran from these.

It is always possible to select some Hadith which seem trivial, some which apparently contradict the Quran, some which contradict each other, some which are different reports of the same thing, many which were overheard by passers by and it is not known to whom something was said in what context and circumstances. Some are additions or distortions by sectarians. But there are also some which tell us the circumstances in which some of the Quranic verses were revealed, some which tell us how they were interpreted and applied at one time, and some illuminate the verses of the Quran.

Take as an example the case of Quranic phrase "the Seal of the Prophets". We have different interpretations of it. Some say "seal" means last Prophet and no more will come. Others say it refers to the fact that religion is complete in Islam, as when a letter is sealed. Others say it is a "seal of approval or authority." and seal refers to the ring used to make the seal. In this case it refers to the fact that Muhammad (saw) confirmed the past Prophets and the religion they taught.

Notice that if we interpret the Quran by the Quran then two of the meanings above are confirmed but the third (the Last Prophet) is neither confirmed nor denied. So, in order to settle the dispute we do what the Quran recommends, namely, go to Allah (in prayer or by study of the Quran) and the Prophet (since he is dead, nowadays we consult his Sunna). When we do the latter we find that several Hadith indicate that the Prophet himself was convinced that he was the Last Prophet before the return of Jesus and that he had laid the last stone in the House of religion. The House of Religion, therefore, consists of all religions sent by Allah and not just that brought by Muhammad (saw). He also indicated that Islam would have inspired reformers from time to time, rather than a series of prophets as the Jews had. If the Day of Resurrection means the Day when a Prophet comes and produces spiritual regeneration, then Muhammad is the last Prophet until then.

Again, apart from the problem of the reliability of the Hadith, there is still some doubt as to what exactly was meant. Was he referring to Jesus as the word and spirit from Allah? What was meant by descent? He did seem to indicate that it would be a man who would reform religion which would have become corrupted and so restore Islam. If this is so, how would Muslims in so far as they are adherents of the corrupted religion, recognise Jesus and Islam? The new claimants to prophethood say they are Jesus returned. This does not contradict the Hadith.

But I am inclined to the idea that some of these may be frauds, sometimes sincere but deluded. But some may well be Reformers who have been "carried away" and mistaken themselves for Prophets. We discriminate between them by the Quran. This requires that the Quran should be studied with an open mind without pre-conceptions. But the Hadith can aid us in this. I hope this explanation clarifies. If not, please ask questions rather than attack or criticise.

----------<O>----------

61 - Relativity of Values

"J.S.B" wrote:-

In reply to a supporter of "humane values", "the relativity of values" and about conflict between value systems:- " Scenario's such as the one mentioned are avoided in Islam as we are first expected to believe in Allah and then everything subsequent is His Word and, therefore, to be taken as an Absolute. This flies in the face of your stand, because if there are no absolute values, then even the values in the Quran are to be questioned.

Comment:-

The idea that values are relative is commonly held by many people without examining the implications. In fact, "relativity" has no meaning except in relation to "absolute". A distinction has to be made between several levels of values - the fundamental purposes, the means to achieve these and the methods to the means. These can change according to changes in circumstances.

Consider, for instance, the fact that killing is regarded as bad when done to innocent people in peace time - it is then called murder - but it is legitimate in war time and for self-defence. Thus killing is relative, but murder is not. Apart from this, we have some absolute standard in mind according to which we assess whether something is good or bad. In the case of killing it arises from the fact that the existence of an organism demands its preservation and retaliation is a normal reaction designed to preserve the organism and deter the flouting of this inherent condition. There is no question that organisms will defend themselves or even attack things that threaten their life. It is a built-in purpose and a built-in truth. Objective values flow from such facts and vice versa - that is, it would not be a fact that the organism exists if it did not have that purpose.

It is also supposed that it is man who produces value systems. But this means that they produce them subjectively according to whim, prejudices, self-interest etc. It is implied that values cannot be objective - i.e. something connected with their inherent nature. But if it is subjective then everyone's values are as good as anyone else's. We then either have conflicts or to avoid it we have coercion by the powerful or mental conditioning.

A way round this problem is to say that values arise from consensus and are maintained because it is in everyone's interest to abide by the consensus. The values are imposed by force on those who would deviate from such a consensus. However, this idea is an illusion. When was any one asked to agree to a moral principle? One could, of course say that in so far as we are human we all have something inherently in common and that this provides us with an "implicit consensus". That would give us objective values. Apart from this life in a particular locality, society and cultures will also provide common experiences and these will differ from those in other environments. Values can then be both Objective and Relative. In fact, however, as we see that people have all kinds of prejudices, fantasies and self-interests and that in communities, autocratic, oligarchic or democratic, people are always trying to get their own way and a small set of ambitious people take control of affairs. They are not the ablest, the most virtuous (people with a social consciousness and sense of responsibility) or those with greatest knowledge. But they also endeavour to impose these values on others. If they were then this would be an advantage to the whole community. We then get Subjective Relative values. There are, therefore, three kinds of Value Systems. A fourth, Subjective Absolute values, could exist when people are in a "State of Surrender" i.e. truly Muslim.

In the end it is nature itself which determines what the Absolute values are, and Nature is made by God, the ultimate reality, according to certain laws. Values must, therefore, be objective ones. Otherwise they will produce malfunctions. This is similar to saying that if you put your finger in the fire then it will burn - do not do it. This will happen no matter how many people arrive at a consensus that it is good to put your finger in the fire.

It is, therefore, necessary to arrive at values by research or to accept the ones given to us by people who have objective discernment, and not by whims, prejudices, fashions, fantasies, wishful thinking, social conditioning, political expediencies and so on.

----------<O>----------

62 - Proof of Religion

"S.D" wrote :-

There are different religions, each having a different concept of God and Truth. Unlike Science, which presents objective truths that all can accept, religions cannot be true.

Comment:-

Agreement can be obtained if everyone in a set of people accepts the same rules, uses the same language and conceptual system and undergoes the same training, takes the same environment as the source of experiences and has the same motives and does the same kind of thing. This applies to science, politics, business and religion. Disagreements take place when these conditions differ and when there is a difference in capacity for perception and in the width and comprehensiveness of knowledge.

The fact is that all human beings do not agree with scientists.

You are mistaken also about scientists agreeing with one another. There are constant controversies even when experiments appear to confirm or flout rival theories, though some things are agreed upon. This is because knowledge is always limited, experimental methods can be criticised and experimental results have to be interpreted. But even that which is agreed upon at one time is found to be false or inadequate at another time. Thus we go from Newton's view of how the Universe works to Einstein's view and then to Quantum Theory. No doubt this will also be replaced because there are many facts not explained by it.

As for religions, they also have much that is agreed on, namely that there is a world beyond the physical. Most are agreed that there is a God. So we have a consensus of opinion. The fact that they differ about the nature of God is not different from different reporters writing articles about the same objects, event or place. Their accounts differ according to their points of observation, motives and patterns of thinking or intelligence and capacity for perception. They select facts and see a partial truth. This difference does not prove that there was no event or object to which the reports relate. If, however, you mistake the report itself for the thing it points to, then they cannot be the same. Ultimately, of course, a Truth refers to what exists in Reality and we have access to it through experience. But people differ in their capacity for experiences, the kinds of experiences they have, their interests and motives that direct their attention, their intelligence and understanding and the efforts they make. There are also illusions, delusions, superstitions and hallucinations.

It is not, therefore, the case that what scientists, religious people or others claim to be true or false is in fact so. We have to establish the consistency of the item with our experiences but also with the inherent truth within us - that is, the forces and laws that account for our own nature.

"S.D":-

Alternatively someone makes up an amusing anecdote, which gets passed on as a 'friend of a friend' story, the details changing with each re-telling. Just because they have a common source does not imply that there was any truth to the original story, and even if there is any truth in the nth-hand reports, we have no way of telling which parts of the story they are.

Comment:-

The original story may still be there and you have to ascertain whether it is consistent with all other things. If it is false then it will clash with some facts. That is how detectives work and also scientists. Certainly the object to which the story refers may still exist and the events connected with it will still have effects.

But of course discernment is also required. You cannot prove anything to those who do not have the capacity to understand it. As for personal evidence, three criteria are required :-

(a) If there is a one off experience then it is doubtful. The more it is repeated the greater the probability that it is true.

(b) If other people do not report similar experiences then again it may be doubtful. But the probability of its truth increases with the number of people who report it. This too is repeatability. This is a social dimension.

(c) It must remains consistent with other experiences and enable rather than disables adjustment to reality. Here repetition means the number of links it makes with other experiences.

There is no essential difference between what is called subjective experience and objective experience. All experiences are private to the individual.

What we have established so far is that proof requires:-

(1) Thinking. But if it is rational then the conclusions must always be already contained in the premises. You cannot invent things or discover anything not contained in the premises. In order to reach a conclusion you can choose a set of appropriate premises. Others can choose other sets to reach other conclusions.

(2) But the premises themselves link certain notions together. To prove a premise you need to strictly define your concepts. Different people may, however, have different concepts even if the words are the same. They may be defined in different conceptual systems - scientific, political, commercial, aesthetic, religious etc.

(3) Then you must go to experience - observation, experiment etc. in order to establish the connections between these concepts. This requires repeatability and consistency. There must be relevant experience and a sufficient quality and quantity of them. The conclusions will differ accordingly.

(4, 5, 6) The three criteria mentioned in (a), (b), (c) above.

(7) Experience also requires the capacity for experience - It varies with the degree of consciousness and intelligence and inversely with the inner obstructions, rigidities, attachments and distorting elements such as prejudices, egotism, self-interest, greed etc. Thinking also requires the capacity for thinking. This is why we have educational systems and all manner of disciplines- in order to enhance the inherent capacities of man. Proof, therefore, also requires that there be people who have undergone the discipline by which their capacity for understanding proof has been formed.

(8) Ultimately, Reality itself will decide what is true - when ideas which do not facilitate adjustment to reality lead to suffering and destruction and the abandonment of those ideas. This leaves those ideas which facilitate adjustment and development. i.e. God judges.

The number of people who have done the experiments and repeated them in order to establish a scientific idea is usually smaller than in many other fields. Most people simply accept ideas on faith from those whom they consider their leaders or heroes. Or they may accept them because some useful application has been made. But utility is not the same thing as truth - otherwise lies would not exist.

"S.D":-

So when are you going to provide some evidence of the existence of this "true God"?

Comment:-

There is evidence all around you. No one can prove anything for anyone else. Each one has to prove things to himself and will do so according to his abilities, motives and efforts. Like any scientist you will have to undergo an appropriate discipline and use an appropriate conceptual system, and make the necessary efforts, exercises and actions, and then you will have the experiences which are the proof. Until then you have only words which stand for nothing.

You might be imprisoned in a certain conceptual system and not understand when things are explained to you. Progress in all fields, not only in knowledge takes place because some people manage to break out of their mental shackles, but unfortunately soon become trapped in another. The Islamic concept of God as the Absolute Fundamental self-existing Unity is wholly liberating.

"S.D":-

If your concept of 'God' is this absolute unity, you are a deist, not a Muslim. If you start attaching any kind of personal attributes to this unity you are building yourself another prison and calling it freedom - which is not the same thing as being free.

Comment :-

Sorry, I do not accept your definition of deist or Muslim or the other things you say - these are prisons. I reject them. A Muslim is one who surrenders to (or identifies with) Allah, who is the all embracing Reality. No doubt you know that Muslims are forbidden to make any kind of image of God - He is not like any object having limitations. Quran 112. But we are not concerned merely with concepts, but with the relevant experience and ultimately with the reality.

----------<O>----------

63 - Imagination

"RH" wrote:-

Jules Verne has put the first step on the way to the moon. As Einstein said "Imagination is more imported than knowledge". What feeds imagination? Art.

Comment:-

That is what Einstein said, but not what the Quran says. But then the Quran is concerned with human development and not technology.

The word “imagination“ covers several different meanings:- (1) It can refer to fantasy which is based on wishful thinking and produces illusions and delusions and even hallucinations.. (2) It can refer to images of real objects or events in the memory and mind. They are not the same as the objects just as the image in the mirror is not the object it reflects but corresponds to it. (3) It can refer to the ability to manipulate ideas and produce new ones by re-arrangement. This, too is not the same thing as real objects and events. (4) It can refer to the ability to see similarities even underlying dissimilar things. (5) It can refer to empathy, the ability to put oneself mentally in the situation of another person and experience what he experiences. This is obviously a good social skill that also advances knowledge. (6) It can refer to creativity and the invention of useful devices including machinery, instruments, patterns and explanatory devices. The useful is not necessarily the same thing as truth.

"RH":-

Islamic art is mainly based and composed of ornamental art. It is known that Islam prohibited sculpture and painting in order to cut the return way to idolatry. However this has lead to weakness of imagination. And this has resulted in poor creativity on science.

Comment:-

No, I cannot agree. Portrait painting is imitative art does not require imagination. It is this which is forbidden in case of idolatry. Muslims developed geometrical types of art which are imaginative and which are also connected with certain deeper aspects of nature - e.g.. halographics and fractals - The over all Plan of the Universe tends to be reflected in the parts, e.g. the solar system in the atom and so on.

It can be argued that knowledge is about discovery of truth and cannot be invented. Invention is lying unless it is creative as in technology. Though technology, the application of knowledge is good when it is beneficial for man, obsession with it is not. That is what it has to a large extent become. What is really beneficial for human beings is ultimately spiritual because physically all human being must die and this makes purely physical benefits useless.

The backwardness in developing technology appears to be connected with the non-development of Capitalism. Though Islam encouraged Trade (The Prophet himself was a merchant), and this did require an outlay of Capital, it did not seem to have encourage manufacture. It is only when the Americas were discovered with their great natural resources, that mechanisation was encouraged in two ways. Britain needed vast quantities of goods in order to trade with the Americas in order to obtain their wealth. This encouraged mechanisation and factory building. In America the emigrant population provided only a small labour force. This encouraged invention there as well as import of slaves.

Note that these conditions did not exist in Muslim countries - they were dominant in the old lands. But, nevertheless the Muslim world is responsible for these developments in an indirect way. The Muslim merchants brought spices and silk etc. to Europe from the East and whetted their apatite for trade. They also conquered Constantinople and closed all over land routes to the East. This led to the great exploration of the world in search of a Western sea routes by European seamen. This could not have been done except for the idea that the world was round and the compass - both came into Europpe from Islamic sources. This exploration led to the discovery and settlement of America and Australia. This resulted in the relief of population pressures in Europe as well as an escape from traditions, persecutions and oppression in Europe and the development of new ideas. Add the existence of great amount of space and resources in America and you see how fortunate the West was.

The Muslim countries, on the other hand, had to deal with the Christian crusades, financed by wealth from America and the destructive forces of the Mongols under Chenghis Khan. In dealing with these latter they protected Europe from a similar fate.

----------<O>----------

Contents……….Discussions-4