Some Problems - 4

(16) Understanding the Quran

Critic:-

I have read the Quran. I find much of it immoral and I reject it. For instance, it calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims. I know that you quote verses that allowed Muslims only self-defence. But there are other verses that contradict this.

Comment:-

This opinion is based on ignorance. All Muslims know that the Quran is to be understood as whole and that no contradictions between the various parts are valid. But as you do not read the Quran as it requires to be read what you read is NOT the Quran, but your own mind.

A Christian:-

This is an interesting comment. It is true that Muslims make this stipulation when others read the Quran, and I would concur that you can end up believing things which the Quran itself refutes. But why then do many Muslims seem incapable of using the same criteria when interpreting other religious texts, most notably the Bible? Is doing this not also ignorance?

Comment:-

(1) Firstly, Muslims take, or ought to take, the Quran as the Criterion, and interpret all other things, including other scriptures, by means of this. So if there is anything in these other scriptures that seems to contradict the Quran then either (a) that has been misunderstood and needs to be re-interpreted, or (b) there are mistakes in these other things or (c) the Quran has been misunderstood and should be studied further or (d) both are correct and refer to different conditions or contexts.

(2) We know that the New Testament consists of several books written by third parties that differ from one another. They are not the direct inspirations from God and they are not the words of the Prophet e.g. Jesus (though they may contain these), but interpretations by others who are fallible.

(3) We know that there are sects among Muslims as there are among the adherents of other religions, and that all these exist because of differences in selecting or emphasising different parts of their scriptures and ignoring others. It is not, therefore, a case of condemning only non-Muslims. I have the same criticisms for Muslims who do that. We are required to increase our knowledge and not adhere to opinions based on conjecture.

(4) The Quran is concerned with Universal unity and harmony. What we look for, or ought to look for, is not only (a) the internal self-consistency of the Quran and (b) its consistency with other scriptures, but also (c) its consistency with inner experiences and (d) its consistency with the external world.

(17) Articles on Islam

Critic:-

What is disappointing, from the Islamic perspective, is that many well-meaning Muslim activists are still "intellectually" challenging and attacking these outmoded "ideas" that have no longer any significant resonance in the non-Islamic world since the advent of "post-modernism" and "post-colonialism", et al, in the latter half of the 20th century. This is very much the same neo-conservative mindset as the "Fundamentalist Christianity" movement, who are still battling a now superseded, even semi-mythological, "philosophy", using mainly 19th century ideological ammunition, because that's the only thing they know how to do.

Comment:-

Examples of these defects would be helpful in allowing intelligent discussion. It could well be that these "superseded trends" are still prevalent and need to be dealt with.

From an examination of the articles posted on Islamic Internet sites, it is possible to discern the following categories of posters:-

(1) Those that have knowledge of Islam and provide, or try to provide, explanations about various aspects of Islam in contemporary terms to our enlightenment.

(2) Those Muslims or non-Muslims, who may not understand something, but wish to learn and ask questions.

(3) Hostile non-Muslims who attack and abuse Islam from points of ignorance and prejudice.

(4) Sectarian Muslims and those with an agenda of their own who base themselves on bias and partial knowledge.

(5) Those who like to confuse, obscure, to "muddy the waters", or make vague insinuations, possibly to hide their own confusion and inability to understand.

(6) Muslims who have nothing constructive to say but like to criticise other Muslims, possibly in order to establish their own superiority over others.

(7) Those who have studied much Western or other non-Islamic Philosophy and judge the Quran and Islam from that point of view. Some often attach quotations from these extraneous sources at the end of their post but never from the Quran or any other Islamic source. One wonders whether they know Islam at all, but are attempting to Westernise Islam.

(8) Hypocrites who pretend, consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or by self-deception, to be Muslim but attempt to undermine Islam from the inside in that they try to propagate ideas that obviously contradict the Quran, often in subtle manner. These are by far the most vicious of all.

(18) Death of Jesus

A Muslim:-

The Quran says: WA MA QATALOOHU. So those "Muslims" say 'Eesa was not killed. Then the Quran says right after the above: WA MA SALABOOHU. This is bewildering, because both qatl and salb come after the **same** negation. The negation is even emphasized for them (WA MA QATALOOHU, WA MA SALABOOHU).

Comment:-

As far as I can see, the Quran is telling us that the JEWS did not crucify or kill Jesus. The New Testament tells us that it was the Romans who did it. And Jesus is reported to have said:-

"Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I might take it up again. No man takes it from me, but I lay it down myself. " John 10:17-18

So I see no contradiction except that for Islam there can be no vicarious atonement and everyone is responsible for their own salvation.

4:155. But then because they broke their covenant, and for their disbelief in Allah's revelations, and for their killing the prophets undeservedly, and for their saying in defiance: Our heart are uncircumcised, (Our heart are sufficient wrappings or foreskins for Allah's Words) - nay, Allah hath stamped on them their disbelief, so that only a few believe -

4:156. And because of their disbelief, and because of their utterance of a mighty calumny against Mary;

4:157. And because of their boastful saying: Verily, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah, - but they killed him not, nor did they crucify him, but it was obscured for them (or it appeared so to them). And verily, those who differ about him are in doubt concerning him; they have no knowledge thereof, but only follow a conjecture. Certainly, they slew him not!

4:158. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; for Allah is ever Mighty and Wise!

Muslim:-

4:158. But Allâh raised him ['Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allâh is Ever All&endash;Powerful, All&endash;Wise.

Comment:-

Whereas you might be right, I can see an alternative explanation that seems more likely to me.

I do not see "raised him up with his body and soul."

Jesus is described as a Word and Spirit from Allah. 3:45, 4:172. Following 3:45 we read in 3:55 that Allah took him up.

3:55. Behold! Allah said: O Jesus! I will take you and raise you up to Myself, and will cleanse you (of the falsehoods) of those who disbelieve, and will set those who follow you above the faithless until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that wherein you used to disagree.

Does this necessarily imply that Jesus was taken up to Heaven? Or does it mean that he was exalted? See the verses that follow especially 3:59 -

"Verily the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from earth, then He said to him: BE! And he was."

If he was taken up to heaven does this not imply that he died on earth?

Another Muslim:-

No it does not imply he died. Allah would have said so. Allah said he took him up to heaven alive (not dead) and that is the meaning all believers will take.

Comment:-

No, not all believers.

The Quran tells us that martyrs are alive in heaven - does it mean that they are not dead on eearth or do you think they were taken up bodily?

Muslim:-

As you know Prophet Isa (Peace and grace of Allah be upon him) will come back before the trumpet is sounded, will die a natural death, and will be buried by Muslims.

Why must we make assumptions that being taken to heaven means to die?

Comment:-

What makes you think that his return implies that he did not die?

" (Jesus said): And peace upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised up alive. Such was Jesus, the son of Mary. This is the statement of truth concerning which they doubt (or dispute)." 19:33-34

This verse states that he would be raised up alive AFTER he died.

Consider the following:-

"We appointed immortality for no mortal before you. What! If you die, will they live on forever? Every soul must taste of death. We will test you with evil and with good, as a trial; and unto Us will you be returned." 21:34-35

"He said: Go you down, each one of you an enemy to the other. In the earth will be your abode, and a provision for a season. He said: Therein shall you live and therein shall you die, from it shall you be brought forth at last." 7:24-25

"To every people was sent a Messenger; and when their Messenger comes to them (on the Day of Judgment), it will be judged between them fairly, and they will not be wronged." 10:48

Do you think that on the Day of Judgement when everyone is to be raised Jesus will die? Does Allah send Messengers that are not mortal, made of flesh?

"Their Messengers said unto them: We are only mortals like yourselves; but Allah gives grace unto whomsoever He will of His servants, and it is not for us to bring you an authority, save by His permission. In Allah let believers rely!" 14:11

(19) Women Slaves

Critic:-

Here is the passage in the Koran giving men sexual rights over their slaves:-

"Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess..." (4:24).

Clearly this applies to women captured in war. Note also that the Quran is explicit about the permission to rape married captives.

Comment:-

Where does it say that they can be raped?

The rule is:-

"O you who believe! It is not lawful for you to inherit women against their will; nor to restrain them so that you may take away part of what you gave them, unless they commit flagrant lewdness; but associate with them with kindness and equity, for if you dislike them, it may be that you dislike something wherein Allah has put much good for you." 4:19

"But whoever of you cannot marry free women who believe, then marry from what your right hands possess, believing maids; Allah knows best about your faith. You arise one from the other, so marry them with the permission of their people, and give them their portions in kindness and equity, they being chaste and not lecherous, and not of loose conduct. But when they are married, if they commit fornication, then inflict upon them half the penalty for free women; that is for whomsoever of you fears wrong; but that you should have patience is better for you, for Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." 4:25

"And serve Allah; associate nothing with Him; show kindness to parents, and to kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and to the neighbour who is a kin, and the neighbour who is a stranger, and the fellow traveller, and the wayfarer, and those whom your right hands possess (slaves). Verily, Allah loves not him who is proud and boastful." 4:36

Critic:-

The Quran says in 4:24, (Forbidden to you are ... ) all married women except those whom your right hands possess. That is to say, you are not forbidden to have relations with married women whom your right hands possess (your slaves). If they are already married, and you still have the right to 'go into them', then you are raping them.

Rape of any description, whether of captives or slaves, has always been forbidden to Christians; apart from the violence and injustice involved it is contrary to the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery". Rape was never a 'practise' or a 'custom' in Christendom. Whatever the truth about Augustine, it has no bearing on Christian teaching about rape.

Comment:-

Show us in the NT where rape is forbidden. You have quoted the OT, but the laws of the OT are flouted and ignored in Christianity. Adultery and fornication are also forbidden in the Quran. Are you saying that no Christian raped? Or that those who raped were not Christians? Or do you distinguish between the teaching and the conduct of some people in Christianity, but not in Islam?

If a person had a mentality such as yours, that wants to interpret things in the worst manner possible, what do you think could be made, and have been made, about Jesus by verses in the NT that describe him as cursing the fig tree that gave him no fruit, putting the devils into swine and forcing them to drown themselves, abusing the Pharisees, and upsetting the tables of the merchants?

You are asserting that "Not forbidden" means "raping". In the OT we read:-

“Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.” Genesis 16:1 – 4

Now tell us: Is it your opinion that Abraham rape Hagar. Or do you deny that this that the OT is a Christian Scripture and that Jesus accepted it?

(20) Nature of God

Critic:-

You say that "God's power and scope of activity are unlimited". But there are certain things that God cannot do: God cannot lie though according to Islam He misleads people, and God does not do evil or inflict evil on us. God is all loving.

Comment:-

You are mistaken. Islam does not have a concept of God with the limitations you wish to impose on Him.

Truth and Goodness are that which God creates, does or instructs.

Human beings have limitations and this is what causes contradictions between the things they accept and reject.

"Cannot lie" has no meaning when whatever He does is Truth by definition. It is you who judge things to be lies. You judge things according to how things affect you personally or according to your own whims and prejudices. This is also why you misunderstand the Quran and judge things in it as immoral.

For Muslims, the Quran is the Word of God and the criterion by which they judge anything else.

(21) Fanaticism

Question:-

Recently there has been a spate of articles that fall under the fanaticism, (i.e. excessive intolerance of opposing views) banner, that is, the end justifies the use of *any* means. This raises some moral dilemmas for Muslim:-(1) is fanaticism a psychological state of mind that underscores the traits of all fanatics, as a collective group mentality. (2) Are all fanatics, regardless of their differences, then comrades under the skin since they play the same interchangeable roles in their respective belief systems? Would we then say that there is good and bad fanaticism depending on the respective cause? For instance, would fanaticism for Islam be deemed as a good, in the minds of Muslim subscribers, and fanaticism against Islam as an evil? Or, is fanaticism, as object, always morally reprehensible in Islam? Depending on what we think, for example, how would we then morally classify the fanaticism of the current insurgency in Iraq as a good?

Comment:-

The question is:- What does "excessive intolerance" mean?

If a person has little, mild, mere sentimental or passing interest in something then those who take things seriously and sincerely may be regarded by him as fanatics. Opponents of a cause or system may also use the phrase, especially when they try to suppress, persecute take action against them and this provokes resistance or retaliation.

The phrase, therefore, seems to be more about the mentality about those who use the phrase against others. There must be a more objective way of defining "fanaticism".

Three psychological tendencies and classes of people should be distinguished:-

(1) People who live their lives without a conscious purpose in life, conditioned by their environment and drift with the wind of circumstance. There are contradictions in their thoughts, feelings and behaviour and this wastes psychological energy.

(2) People who form strong emotional attachments or obsessions to forms, slogans, ideas, systems, institutions and so on without any understanding and little control over their emotions and action. It is a sub-rational state. As they identify themselves, their Egos with the object of their devotion, they tend to be over-sensitive, intolerant and destructive of anything they see as contradicting it, which they interpreting as a threat and an attack on themselves. In so far as they are devoted to a cause their actions tend to contradict and negate its doctrines and purposes. These people are correctly called Fanatics. This is a form of Idolatry and can be regarded as a case of Possession.

(3) People who are sincere and dedicated to their Religion or Value system and try with conscious and deliberate efforts to understand and practice its disciples. They are sometimes called Fundamentalists and mistaken for Fanatics by those belonging to the other two classes. But, in Islamic terms they should be called True Muslims. The difference lies in that the Muslim identifies himself, or ought to identify himself with the Divine Spirit within him in Surrender to God. This is a supra-rational state. The Fanatic, on the other hand, is identified with his Ego, an illusion of self, and his thoughts, motives and actions often contradicts the cause he professes.

Most people can be regarded as various amounts of mixture of these three tendencies.

A Muslim:-

I don't necessarily disagree with your generalised overview of peoples psychological tendencies. Nevertheless, have you considered that "fanaticism" is not considered as a recognised psychological disorder (just look it up in any good medical or psychology dictionary)? But certain aspects of bizarre fanatical behaviour is covered under separate clinical headings.

One description indicates:- "A fanatic who dies for a cause is willing to sacrifice others as well as himself for his truth. The lives of others are no more value to him than his own. Since he is prepared to make the supreme sacrifice, he regards it as churlish of those whom he slays for their own salvation to protest or oppose him." [Hook]

Isn't this description of a "fanatic" clearly evident in the "fanaticism" being practised everyday in Iraq, and elsewhere for that matter? Which raises the decisive question, how can Muslims maintain their integrity when such appalling acts of fanaticism are being perpetrated in their name?

Comment:-

Where did I say that it was "a recognised psychological disorder". I said that it was a form of obsession, fixation or attachment and that all suffer from it to various degrees.

As pointed out, fanaticism is a relative term. People who have little interest in a cause or system tend to apply the word to those who take it more seriously, as do opponents of it.

You gave us Hook's opinion. That is of course his opinion, not that of Muslims. He cannot possibly know what the suicide bomber is thinking. The only fact about him is that he regards his action as good.

(1) In general, we all have a self-preservative instinct and going against it is regarded as a pathological state because it is essential to the existence of the human race. It occurs in cases of depression and obsessive compulsive disorders and in schizophrenic or hallucinatory drug episodes.

(2) However, it is also known, even at the level of cells, that individuals do sacrifice themselves for the good of their families or community and this too has survival value.

(3) In human beings this kind of self-sacrifice can be "sublimated" so that it extends to a cause that is regarded as important for the welfare and progress of humanity.

(4) But they may be mistaken in their assessment of the cause or the effectiveness of their action.

It is not certain whether any particular suicide bomber belongs to the pathological group or the other three groups.

I think most of the Suicide Bombers might belong to group (4), but obviously their opinion is different.

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

Contents