The Teachings of Islam: December 2008

Excellent Moral Values of the Believers

Part 1: Arrogance - the Character of Satan:

Excellent Moral Values of the Believers 2:

Excellent Moral Values of the Believers 3:

Loving For Allah's Sake

A believer devotes his entire life to Allah. He lives for Allah, works for Allah and loves for Allah’s sake. “Loving for Allah’s sake” might be an incomprehensible concept for someone who is not well acquainted with true Islam. One who has remained distant from Allah throughout his life, and who has therefore not known Him, will be unaware of how to love Allah intuitively.

However, a believer who knows Allah and witnesses His mercy to him, who recognises that everything he loves is His blessing and that he owes his existence and life to His mercy, loves Allah and attains the noble spirit of loving for the sake of Allah. In the Qur’an, the great difference between believers and other people in this sense is stated as follows:

Some people set up equals to Allah, loving them as they should love Allah. But those who believe have greater love for Allah… (Surat al-Baqara: 165)

As is stated in the verse above, those who associate partners with Allah and who, in their minds, ascribe all attributes of Allah to other beings, love these beings as they should love Allah. This is the kind of love that is based on idolatry.

Aware that everything belongs to Allah and every being’s existence is consequential upon Allah’s creation, believers love Allah most. The believer grasps the following fact:

Nothing (be it a human being, a thing or an event, etc.) has a beauty of its own. Allah creates all things and endows them with beauty. Since a person, for example, has not designed and formed his or her face himself, that beauty is a beauty that belongs to Allah.
Allah gives this beauty to man, whom he created from nothing, for a brief time only (since that person will soon grow old and die). Only Allah possesses the power to recreate that beauty in the hereafter, in an even more perfect form.

This being the case, a believer loves all the things he encounters in this world, aware that they all belong to Allah and that he will encounter the “original” form of their beauty in the hereafter. Consequently, his actual love is for Allah, the One Who provides him with everything he loves: He is the real Owner of every kind of beauty.

Contrary to the concept of love based upon faith in Allah that is enjoyed by believers, disbelievers’ love is based on idolatry. In the Qur’an, this form of love is described in the words of Prophet Ibrahim (as):

He said, “You have adopted idols apart from Allah as tokens of mutual affection in this world. But then on the Day of Rising you will reject one another and curse one another. The Fire will be your shelter. You will have no helpers.” (Surat al-‘Ankabut: 25)

Said Nursi, also known as Bediuzzaman (the Wonder of the Age), one of the greatest Islamic scholars of the twentieth century, likens this form of love to that of a man who looks at the sun through a mirror held in his hand. Once the mirror is broken into pieces and light is no longer reflected from it, the man feels profound distress at having lost a source of light. However, he is not intelligent enough to conceive that the light in the mirror does not actually originate from it. The light comes from the sun; mirrors only reflect it.

Believers love only Allah and those who place faith in Him. This being the case, they have no love for anybody who rebels against Allah. This subject is emphasised in the following verses of the Qur’an:

You who believe! Do not take My enemy and your enemy as friends, showing love for them when they have rejected the truth that has come to you, driving the Messenger and yourselves out of your city simply because you believe in Allah your Lord. If you go out to fight in My Way and seeking My pleasure, keeping secret the love you have for them, I know best what you conceal and what you make known. Any of you who do that have strayed from the right way. (Surat al-Mumtahana: 1)

You will not find people who believe in Allah and the Last Day on friendly terms with anyone who opposes Allah and His Messenger, even though they be their fathers, their sons, their brothers or their nearest kindred... (Surat al-Mujadala: 22)

As the verses above make it clear, the love of a believer rests on no criterion other than the “love felt for Allah.” Setting aside all factors such as kinship or material wealth, this love is deeply rooted in faith and noble values. A believer has love for those whose faith is assured rather than for those possessing fame, money or social status, which are only seemingly important. (For further reading see Harun Yahya “Devoted to Allah”)

~Harun Yahya

source:http://us2.fmanager.net/api_v1/productDetail.php?dev-t=EDCRFV&objectId=9895

Why Are Most of the Muslims Fundamentalists and Terrorists?

This question is often hurled at Muslims, either directly or indirectly, during any discussion on religion or world affairs. But Muslims seems to be defending themselves on this topic.

Do you know who is fundamentalist?

1. Definition of the word ‘fundamentalist’

A fundamentalist is a person who follows and adheres to the fundamentals of the doctrine or theory he is following. For a person to be a good doctor, he should know, follow, and practise the fundamentals of medicine. In other words, he should be a fundamentalist in the field of medicine. For a person to be a good mathematician, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of mathematics. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of mathematics. For a person to be a good scientist, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of science. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of science.

2. Not all ‘fundamentalists’ are the same

One cannot paint all fundamentalists with the same brush. One cannot categorize all fundamentalists as either good or bad. Such a categorization of any fundamentalist will depend upon the field or activity in which he is a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist robber or thief causes harm to society and is therefore undesirable. A fundamentalist doctor, on the other hand, benefits society and earns much respect.

3. I am proud to be a Muslim fundamentalist

I am a fundamentalist Muslim who, by the grace of Allah, knows, follows and strives to practise the fundamentals of Islam. A true Muslim does not shy away from being a fundamentalist. I am proud to be a fundamentalist Muslim because, I know that the fundamentals of Islam are beneficial to humanity and the whole world. There is not a single fundamental of Islam that causes harm or is against the interests of the human race as a whole. Many people harbour misconceptions about Islam and consider several teachings of Islam to be unfair or improper. This is due to insufficient and incorrect knowledge of Islam. If one critically analyzes the teachings of Islam with an open mind, one cannot escape the fact that Islam is full of benefits both at the individual and collective levels.

4. Dictionary meaning of the word ‘fundamentalist’

According to Webster’s dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ was a movement in American Protestanism that arose in the earlier part of the 20th century. It was a reaction to modernism, and stressed the infallibility of the Bible, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record. It stressed on belief in the Bible as the literal word of God. Thus fundamentalism was a word initially used for a group of Christians who believed that the Bible was the verbatim word of God without any errors and mistakes.

According to the Oxford dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ means ‘strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, especially Islam’.

Today the moment a person uses the word fundamentalist he thinks of a Muslim who is a terrorist.

5. Every Muslim should be a terrorist

Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.

6. Different labels given to the same individual for the same action, i.e. ‘terrorist’ and ‘patriot’

Before India achieved independence from British rule, some freedom fighters of India who did not subscribe to non-violence were labeled as terrorists by the British government. The same individuals have been lauded by Indians for the same activities and hailed as ‘patriots’. Thus two different labels have been given to the same people for the same set of actions. One is calling him a terrorist while the other is calling him a patriot. Those who believed that Britain had a right to rule over India called these people terrorists, while those who were of the view that Britain had no right to rule India called them patriots and freedom fighters.

It is therefore important that before a person is judged, he is given a fair hearing. Both sides of the argument should be heard, the situation should be analyzed, and the reason and the intention of the person should be taken into account, and then the person can be judged accordingly.

Islam means peace

Islam is derived from the word ‘salaam’ which means peace. It is a religion of peace whose fundamentals teach its followers to maintain and promote peace throughout the world.

Thus every Muslim should be a fundamentalist i.e. he should follow the fundamentals of the Religion of Peace: Islam. He should be a terrorist only towards the antisocial elements in order to promote peace and justice in the society.

~Dr. Zakir Naik

source: http://www.buzzvines.com/why-are-most-muslims-fundamentalists-and-terrorists

A Cat in a Wild World

We have all seen bad films; fortunately most of them are quickly forgotten. However, I'm going to find it difficult to erase the latest from my mind: was it mystery, comedy or action? I wish to God I knew. The drama I found myself in last week was like some horrible Hollywood B-movie. And I was the star. But nobody ever told me the plot, let alone the lines.

"Wait a minute!" I thought, as I sat in front of three FBI agents in the US immigration office, "Am I supposed to be the baddie?"

The Boeing 747 carrying me and my 21-year-old daughter, with more than 200 other passengers, had been ordered to make an emergency stop in a ghost-like airport called Bangor. It seemed a terrible mistake. My ticket said Washington. The FBI men kept asking me to spell my name. "Y-U-S-U-F," I patiently repeated. They looked puzzled. "Are you sure that's the only way you spell it?"

My daughter and I were separated for over an hour for questioning. The officers treated us well, but there was an unbearable uncertainty echoing round my mind: Why? Nobody could answer that question. At least in the past I could see my Moonshadow; now I was dealing with a ghost within a database system, untraceable and indiscriminate.

I had been on my way to Nashville to explore some new musical ideas with a record label there. It was meant to be low-profile because of speculation that it might have raised in the music world about a return of "the Cat" - media attention was the last thing I wanted. But it seems God wanted it otherwise.

Whether there was a mix-up of names and identities, I still don't know. There was no obligation for them to give me a reason; the green visa waiver form I had so neatly filled in denied me any right to appeal or demand answers.

The worst thing was to be separated from my daughter, not knowing how she was or when we might be reunited. She was finally permitted to travel on to Washington with the luggage. Since my phone was confiscated, I couldn't contact her for the next 33 hours, neither could I ring my family, who were relegated to watching the whole frightening episode on TV.

I was driven over 200 miles to Boston, changing vehicles three times. It was only while I was watching TV in a confined hotel room at Boston's Logan airport, that I realised the gross slanders and allegations being spoken against me.

The amazing thing is that I was not given (and have still not been given) any explanation of what it is I am accused of, let alone an opportunity to respond to these allegations. I was simply told that the order had come from "on high". On the planet I come from, I've never known a court where you don't know what crime was committed; you don't hear evidence; and you don't even see a jury or judge.

Finally, the curtain dropped down and the lights came up; I was relieved of my ordeal and delivered home to my family. Never would I have believed that such a thing could happen in the "land of the free".

The consternation of Muslims living in the west is clearly justified: Islamophobia is not a theory, it's a fact, and many ordinary Muslims in the UK and elsewhere are suffering, unseen and unheard. Was I just another victim of religious profiling?

Big questions remain. Was it a mistake? Was it because, after embracing Islam in 1977, I considered the majority under-privileged dark-skinned people of the so-called third world brothers and sisters in humanity, and the fact that I have sympathy for the neglected people of the world who are suffering from tyranny, poverty or war? Was it because I walked out of the wild world of the music industry? Why?

I am a man of peace and denounce all forms of terrorism and injustice; it is outrageous for the US authorities to suggest otherwise. I have dedicated my life to promoting peace throughout the world. It would be devastating were the charity work I do through my humanitarian relief organisation, Small Kindness, which helps countless children and families, and my work for education, to be undermined by what has happened.

I can think of no better response than to continue the important work of caring for the needy and campaigning for peace and stability in this volatile and violent world, and at the same time try to seek to clear my name of this appalling and baseless slur against my character.

In the meantime I am confident that, in the end, common sense and justice will prevail. I'm an optimist, brought up on the belief that if you wait to the end of the story, you get to see the good people live happily ever after.

~Yusuf Islam *

guardian.co.uk, Friday, October 1, 2004, 23.58 BST

*= Yusuf Islam is chairman of the lslamia Schools Trust and the Small Kindness Trust; he was formerly known as Cat Stevens.

Here is one of his Islamic music tracks:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/1jnriwn2zqf/yusuf_islam_-_a_is_for_allah.mp3

source (of article): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/01/usa.comment

Religious Pluralism & Different Interpretations of Religion

Question: Please explain what religious pluralism is and the difference between it and the interpretations of religion.

Answer:

Pluralism is multiplicity. It has different meanings in the philosophy of religion, ethics, law, political science, etc. The common factor that holds true for all of these is to acknowledge multiplicity or plurality in contrast to unity or exclusivism. Religious pluralism means that felicity is not exclusively reserved for a particular religion or religious sect. Truth and felicity not being limited to a specific religion in its turn means that all religions have a certain amount of truth to them. As a result, following the laws of any of them can be a means for man to reach felicity and to gain salvation. The Acceptance of this viewpoint means that the battle of truth and falsehood that exists between religions ceases to exist. The enmity and war that we find between religions gives way to peace and solidarity.

A brief history of religious pluralism

Religious Pluralism was first born in the Christian world and in the last ten years was presented and propagated by John Hick (1992).

Religious pluralism can be considered between various religions in the sense that we consider them all to be true, or at least to all contain some element of truth. Or within any particular religion, various sects can be considered to be valid. For example, the Shi’ite and Sunni sects are two sects within the fold of Islam—each claiming to be the pure Islam. But from the point of view of religious pluralism, both of these groups can be valid, or it can be said that both sects contain some truth to them. In other words religious pluralism can be divided into inter-religious and intra-religious pluralism.

The intellectual foundations of religious pluralism can be delineated as follows:

The differentiation between the kernel and the shell of religion—giving prominence to the kernel of religion, to the detriment of the shell. In this regards, the teachings, especially the mannerisms and the exoteric rituals, are usually considered to be the shell of religion.
This interpretation lays great emphasis on “revelatory” and religious experiences and, in principle, sums up religion as religious experience. Religious experience is naturally always different when it is being formally related or interpreted. This is because on the level of forms, various factors such as culture and intellectual perspectives come into play. In the end, the multiplicity of religions becomes a reflection of some common type of religious experience as it is seen through the mirror of various cultures.
This interpretation is a humanistic one. It holds that religions should stick to down to earth realities that are common instead of laying stress on matters of sublime doctrine; they should keep the latter for themselves.
All religions have one message and with a little analysis, the differences between them disappear. In reality, the differences between religions arise from the differences of interpretations and languages, and are not real.
This phenomenon is based on the difference between the “truth in itself” and the “truth as it appears to us.” In reality, there is an objective truth, but we do not have a perfect understanding of it. Yet the “truth as it appears to us” is a manifestation of this objective reality. The coming into contact of this [non-delimited] divine reality with [limited] man has meant that it has taken on different forms depending upon the differing conditions of man through the ages and in various cultures. Aside from this, Allah (awj) has, in order to create an effective relationship, made his message to conform to the inner workings of every culture and era. It should not be forgotten that many serious objections could be levied against the aforementioned view, even though some of them (like the first) can be interpreted in such a way as to make it correct. For a more in depth and fuller explanation of the above, we suggest referring to the relevant books.
This explanation is a hermeneutical one. It is based on the belief that the presuppositions of every interpreter have a pivotal effect on his attempts to understand a sacred text. According to this viewpoint, the writer and the speaker are just like the interpreter–after the writer finishes the composition of a text he gives up his status as writer. This view says that the text in itself does not have any meaning; rather it is the interpreter that gives meaning to the text by means of his presuppositions and his knowledge. To put it differently, the meaning that resides in any text is much like wax from which the mind of the interpreter forms different shapes according to his predisposition and mental acumen. So, the texts are not pregnant with meanings, rather they are, so to speak, hungry for meaning. It is the interpreters and the listeners that give meaning to texts.

The sixth viewpoint is the common denominator between religious pluralism and the hermeneutics of religious texts. It has some valid objections that we will now refer to.

The system of man’s understanding follows the laws of discourse and conversation. All sane people of the world follow those principles when conversing with one another. The following are principles of conversation: paying attention to the meaning of the speaker or writer, the system of words he is using, the language that he is speaking, his attitude while speaking, his seriousness or his joviality, and the fact that he has definitely intended certain meanings from his text. They are all principles that rational people use when speaking. Even people who hold to the “interpretation” hypothesis outlined above cannot deny using these principles themselves. Of course when a text gives news of something, one must, according to the clues and the meanings of the words, strive to understand it. Also, because religious texts have abrogated laws, general and particular statements, unconditional and conditional sentences, etc. we must carefully examine the beginnings and the ends of each and every text before coming to a conclusion. Therefore, in attempting to understand a text, certain presuppositions exist, like knowing the language of the speaker and the context, but there are also some presuppositions that prevent the listener from understanding it and one must stay away from those if one wants to understand the text.

A review of religious pluralism

Aside from all the objections that can be raised against religious pluralism, one must not forget that according to us Muslims there are various sound proofs for the validity and truthfulness of Islam. With these proofs one cannot claim that all religions are equal. Some of these proofs areas follows: the reasonable nature of the teachings of Islam, the fact that Islamic texts are backed up by references, the un-tampered nature of the Noble Book of Muslims, the miraculous nature of the Qur'an, the comprehensiveness of the laws and their positive and practical nature.

Aside from these proofs a point that must not be lost sight of is the fact that Islam conclusively follows all previous religions. This is tantamount to the abrogation of the preceding religions.

The various interpretations of religion

The various interpretations of religion or “religious hermeneutics” is another branch of religious research. The followers of this school believe in the validity and effectiveness of all the presuppositions of every interpreter of religion when he attempts to understand a sacred text. In the various modern interpretations of religion there are numerous perspectives, the most important of which will be briefly outlined below:

The view of Friedrich Schleiermacher: Hermeneutics is a method for interpreting religious texts and helps avoiding misunderstandings that may arise from the time separating the interpreter and the text itself.
The view of Wilhelm Dilthey: Hermeneutics is a theory used in the human sciences in contrast to the natural sciences. He believes that history interferes in the interpretation of an interpreter.
The view of Martin Heidegger: Hermeneutics makes clear the essence and nature of understanding and its conditions. He changed hermeneutics from a method to a philosophy (or the knowledge of being). Based on a theory relating to existence, he took hermeneutics to be the exposition of the quiddity and essence of understanding and its conditions.
The view of Hans-Georg Gadamer: Hermeneutics is the [study of the] confluence of different levels and perspectives. He presented the ontology of Heidegger as an epistemology and thereby established an “ontology of understanding.” The hermeneutics of Gadamer is for the most part an exposition of the process of the realization of understanding and has no concern with the correctness or incorrectness of understanding.

According to him, the mind of the interpreter is filled with beliefs and information that define his perspective. This perspective always moves along with the interpreter and changes or reaches an equilibrium as he continues to refer to the world and the things in it. The act of interpretation is the confluence of various perspectives and horizons of knowledge within the interpreter; it is the connection of these “horizons” and perspectives with one another. The job of hermeneutics is to unite these perspectives and horizons and to create a dialogue between the interpreter and the text. What causes differences between various interpretations is the emphasis that is put upon certain presuppositions and horizons of thought over others. According to Gadamer, there is no one absolute viewpoint that could comprehend and embrace all possible perspectives. Rather every act of interpretation is a specific perspective in itself. Therefore an unbiased and objective interpretation is not possible and an all-inclusive, definitive interpretation just does not exist. In reality, according to Gadamer, it is not important to discover the “real” intentions of the writer, because in the end, we cannot know the text to be a true representation of the mind of the writer.

A review of Gadamer

We will now briefly allude to some objections that can be raised against Gadamer, seeing as his views have had more of an effect and have been used in theological and philosophical discussions quite often in recent years, and are therefore more important.

Why should we not pay attention to the intent of the writer? Should not the interpreter strive to differentiate between the predispositions of his own understanding and that of the writer?
Gadamer’s perspective leads to a sort of relativism, blurring or removing the distinction between correct and incorrect understanding. This is a kind of relativism that resembles that of Kant.
We can question the universality of Gadamer’s view and we can go on to hold that it is possible to avoid the effects of certain presuppositions and prejudgments.
If every understanding needs certain presuppositions, then in their turn those presuppositions are not exceptions to this rule; and this leads logically to an infinite or circular regress of presuppositions.

Some points worth mentioning regarding the different interpretations of religion

Until now we have explained hermeneutics and the different interpretations of religion, and we have also touched upon the different views regarding it. We have especially covered the viewpoints of Gadamer, mainly due to the fact that they had a far-reaching effect on his contemporaries. In order to complete the discussion we will remind our readers of certain important points:

First, although the subject of different interpretations of religion has largely been taken from modern philosophical hermeneutics, it should be noted that the discussion on the interpretation and understanding of religion has a long history in the Islamic sciences. This is especially the case in the fields of usul, Qur'anic commentary, and theoretical mysticism. Hence, the different kinds of intellectual, textual, symbolic, and mystical commentaries of the Qur'an, the commentary of the Qur'an by the Qur'an, the commentary by one’s own opinion, semantics, and the method of obtaining the apparent meaning of the words of a text, all serve to show the presence of this perspective in traditional Islamic scholarship.

Secondly, since the religious texts played an important part in shaping the culture of Muslims and in the formation of the different Islamic sciences, it is possible to say that investigations into the method of interpreting religious texts play a pivotal role in theological discussions. It is largely due to this that the arguments surrounding the different interpretations of religion have provoked much debate in this area. Most of the views that have been put forward by Arab and non-Arab intellectuals in recent years have been for the most part borrowed from the hermeneutic philosophy of Gadamer. These intellectuals have tried to use the hermeneutic philosophy and methodology in the interpretation of the Noble Qur'an and the traditions, and in trying to understand religion in general. Some of their views in this regard can be summed up as follows:

Religion and the religious texts are quiet and do not speak to us.
The presuppositions of interpreters have an effect in their interpretations of the texts.
No interpreter can grasp the essence of any religion.
There is no one pure perspective. Rather we all use interpretations that are mixtures of truth and falsehood.

The third point is this: In the view of many of the thinkers mentioned above, no importance should be given to principles by which we can judge the various interpretations of religion. No effort is exerted towards separating the incorrect readings from the correct ones. In other words, according to this stance, all the different understandings are equal. On the contrary and in line with the religious principles and viewpoints that are still prevalent in the traditional world, any interpreter must strive to separate the predispositions of his thought from that of the author of the text. He must strive to correct his line of thought and achieve a concordance with the intentions of the writer by using certain principles. If he does not do this, his views will lead not only to the relativity of the understanding of religion but also to the relativity of the methodology of understanding.

According to the views of Islamic scholars, the different understandings of religious statements are an unavoidable phenomena but this difference of understanding is a matter that is regulated by certain principles and laws, many of which have been clearly enunciated by the religious tradition itself.

The fourth and final point: According to what we have just said, the thought of the followers of religious hermeneutic philosophy and the different interpretations of religion revolves around the interpreter and sees him to be central. While on the other hand, the view of Islamic scholars revolves around the author and they attempt to find his original intentions (in the case of religion, the author is either Allah or one whom He sends). In this approach, the interpreter looks through the text—the Qur'an or the traditions—to the intentions of the author, allowing it to be called a “text centred” approach. It aims at revealing the intentions of the author or speaker as correctly as possible and uses all the means that can possibly assist him in this regard.

source: http://www.al-islam.org/faith_reason/52.htm

We Continue to Coexist

Yes, we Muslims and Jews continue to love and respect each other, and live together peacefully no matter how much more propaganda is being prepared against all of us in the dishonest Western media, and unjust governments.

As for those who continue trying to differentiate between us, those unethical people, and those who have no humanity left in their hearts, I promise you, that we will continue to be the living example of peace for the world to study. We are united, in humanity as well as in faith, against the hatred in your hearts and we, God willing, are immune to it. We see through your lies, and we continue our stand for Truth and against injustice.

From Prophet Aaron the peacemaker.. and the Messiah Jesus the prince of peace.. up to the last & final Prophet, who was God's mercy to the worlds.. peace & blessings be upon them all and their households. The lessons are great and many...

We continue believing in the freedom of thought and discussion (intellectual debates)
We continue denouncing Antisemitism
We continue calling for interfaith union
We say the Christian world should beware of Zionism
We never forgot the Holocaust and will never forget other tragedies

~Muhammad

P.S.: notice how the Rabbi continues using the word Allah, which is simply the Arabic word for 'God', unlike the popular misconception that Allah is 'God of the Muslims' or 'God of the Arabs' ! Arab Jews and Arab Christians have always used the word Allah, just like us, the Arab Muslims. Non-Arab Muslims, who are the large majority of Muslims in the world, are preferring more and more to use the Arabic word Allah, because it is unique, gender-less, and it is the proper noun for God Almighty in all the Semitic languages, among other reasons. (For further reading see the book: What is His Name?)

(Alternative link to download the video: http://www.mediafire.com/file/tnz1ywjyjz0/jewish_rabbi_says_he_can_live_peacefully_under_islamic_rules.flv)

Dialog With the Other: No Taboos in Dialog

Since Islam calls for self-dialog on the bases that reason is the groundwork of faith, it is clearly understood that it is a call for thinking loudly and verbally with the other who is in the opposed thoughts and direction as well; thus, This call characterizes the prophet’s mission, who aims at making both individual and social discussions with people, so that the latter could be opened to many serious and crucial issues that are concerned with religion and existence as well. But what happened was that the people didn’t face the thought with thought and the logic with its logic; on the contrary, they didn’t only become sarcastic and oppressors to any new thought, but they also preferred to clutch to their previous and stagnant ideas rejecting at the same time the idea of relating “prophecy” to a human being. On the other hand, ever since the beginning of religion and throughout our reading of the stories of prophets in the Quran, we notice that the concept of debates or discussions is controversial; it is not something new; in fact, there were the apostles who were in continuous polemical issues with the mob, and the demagogues.

In Islam, there are neither restrictions nor sanctifications for the concept of discussion; everything is debatable even the topics that are concerned with the existence of God and the personality of the prophet. We all know that the Quran mentions all the expressions, which the Prophet was accused with. The Quran did not only mention them, but it also dealt seriously and subjectively with them. All the inquiries such as: is the Prophet sane or insane, a magician or a prophet, faithful or liar, is his book human or divine, are raised in the Book

{We do know that they say: A mortal taught him} (The Bee: 103).

{And if they are asked: What has your lord revealed? They say: Old fictitious tales!} (The Bee :24).

Probably the greatest issue, which the Quran tried to face, is the accusation of the Prophet as an insane. Observe how The Quran argued with this issue:

{Say unto them, O Muhammad: I exhort you unto one thing only: that ye awake for Allah’s sake, by twos and singly, and then reflect: There is no madness in your comrade. He is naught else than a warner unto you in face of a terrific doom}. (Saba’a:46).

In this Ayah, Allah God Almighty (S.W.T) orders the people to be away from that chaotic atmosphere; He asks them to contemplate and think deeply within themselves, telling them that the collective mind, if they have a collective mind, hinders the person from having an independent and purified thought. Allah (S.W.T) advises them to separate into two people or one and then if they think well about the Prophet’s words, thoughts, attitudes, and behavior, they will realize that their prophet is not mad.

As the Quran paves the way to dialogs starting with the Prophet, Muhammad, this confirms that there are no taboos in any kind of dialog, in any topics related to faith and dogma, and any topics related to politics, social life, and religion as well. For instance, it facilitates the way to discussion through the inquiries raised about the day of resurrection, as it appears in the following Ayahs in Yasine Surah:

{And he has coined for us a similitude, and has forgotten the fact of his creation, saying: Who will revive these bones when they have rotted away? Say: He will revive them who produced them at the first, for He is knower of every creation} (77-78).

Furthermore, God allows the dialog with the devil and when He allowed the angels to ask him about the creation of Adam. The Cow Surah, Ayah 30, reveals this:

{ Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth, they said: will You place there in one who will do harm there in and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee?}.

What was, glory to Him, His answer: was it scolding and rebuking? God says:

{Surely I know that which you know not,}

Accordingly, if Allah, the creator, talked to the devil, to the prophets, to the angels, and to all people can we disdain and look down upon any kind of discourse?

Indeed, we should never ever feel aloof towards any kind of talk or any type of person; we should be humble and try to understand others so that others could understand us. We assert that people have the right to knowledge, and knowledge has its conditions, which might be variable. So it is the responsibility of those who possess both knowledge and its elements to know how to explain and interpret things to people so as to help them remove all their doubts and reach the real truth.

For this reason, we notice that the Quran threatens all those who know things and attempt at hiding what they know:

{those who hide the proofs and the guidance which we revealed, after we had made it clear in the Scripture: Such are accursed of Allah and accursed of those who have the power to curse} (The Cow: 159).

The Basis of dialog: The freedom of thought and the courtesies of dialog.

If Islam encourages dialog through scientific and objective means to reach the truth, then it should be understood that the freedom of the thinker should not be hindered nor should we deform his image and accuse him of atheism and disbelief. For instance, Imam Jaa’far As-Sadiq (peace be upon him) applied the principles of dialog throughout his career. He used to sit at al-Qaa’ba in “Masjed al-Haram” (in Mecca) and debate with the disbelievers who used to be very sarcastic and aggressive to religion .He used to deal with philosophical and polemical issues when debating with thinkers such as Ibn al-Moukafaa’ and Ibn al-Wajaa. He was characterized by his quietness and politeness before their aggressiveness and irony, simply because he possessed the basis of dialog and he knew that it was his duty to clarify things even to the atheists. Therefore, since the dialog is based on the freedom of thought, the person who is not intellectually free will surely fail in approaching the right while presenting his thoughts and opinions. Accordingly, Islam doesn’t only allow but also accepts all kinds of dialogs with all types of people provided that the person, who is debating, should be ready to any issue that might be raised. The following two Quranic verses show this:

{Lo! Ye are those who argue about that where of ye have some: Why then argue ye concerning that whereof ye have no knowledge?} (3:66).

{And among mankind is he who disputes concerning Allah without knowledge of guidance or a Scripture giving light.} (22: 8).

What the Quran aims at revealing is the truth of those polemicists whose inner conceit and arrogance blind them from admitting the fact of their lacking the power to convince, a fact which resulted from their incompetence. Therefore, we notice that their argument turns out to be hollow and irritable. And if we attempt at understanding the Islamic texts, we notice that Islam focuses on the point that the issue we raise should pour in the channel of righteousness; he who engages in a dialog must be honest in keeping himself within the boundaries of truth. In other words, Islam doesn’t allow the “fruitless polemic”, a dialog that turns out to be just a show for presenting or exposing the rhetoric speakers:

{We only send the Messengers to give glad tidings and to give warnings: But the unbelievers dispute with vain argument in order there with to weaken the truth, and they real My signs and warnings as a jest.} (The cave, 56),

and in His description to the Jewish methods in dialog, Allah God Almighty says:

{And Lo! There is a party of them who distort the Scripture with their tongues that ye may think that what they say is from the Scripture, when it is not from the Scripture. And they say: It is from Allah, when it is not from Allah, and they speak lies concerning Allah knowingly}.

As a matter of fact, such people are not searching for the truth and they look for the means that help them in defeating the other party without any serious concern to whether they are right or wrong.

Thus, their argument turns out to be a battlefield waiting for the winner; it won’t be an argumentative battle for reaching the truth anymore. Furthermore, some believe that although the Holy Book rejects such means of argument, it at the same time, allows them for the Islamic benefits... Indeed, this saying is not only rejected but it is also not permissible. If we observe the previous Ayah, we can clearly notice how the Quran forbids any argument that misleads and resorts to false means. So, no matter what kind of conflict there might be, resorting to any unjust means to confirm just means is prohibited, otherwise we are indirectly admitting the legal and lawful existence of injustice. Imam as-Sadiq (peace be upon him). for instance advises his student not to mix the true with the false, the right with the wrong, and added that little of righteousness may satisfy in the encounter or conflict against the lot of falsehood.

In conclusion, Islam strongly rejects all the dirty polemic means either in its assertion of the right or in attempts to weaken the polemicist.

The methods of Dialog:

After a thorough reading to the Quranic verses, we observe the representation of two different styles for a thoughtful dialog and for various conflicts as well:

A- The cruel style, which depends on the basis of challenging the other opponent and accordingly it generates hatred, enmity and misunderstanding among the polemicists. Thus, this style keeps away all means of communication and understanding to what might be common among the parties.

B- The tractable or the flexible style:

It is a style that depends on the basis of love and flexibility in arguing or dealing with the other, starting from the Islamic view which calls for kindness upon dealing with any person or with any issue. This view considers only the issue of openness and receptiveness to the other so that we could approach him from a righteous point view and convince him with ours. Furthermore, to achieve our aims, we should resort to all kinds of soft expressions, and flexible means which pave the way to approaching the right. In fact, Islam focuses on this style for two main purposes:

1- Reaching the proper knowledge.

2- Approaching the right stance.

As is revealed in the following Ayah, Islam adopts and calls this style by the expression: that is the best preaching. And who is better in speech than him who prays unto his lord does right, and says: Lo! I am of those who surrender (unto Him); the good deed and the evil deed are not alike.

{Repel the evil deed with one, which is better, then lo! He between whom and thee there was enmity (will become) as though he was a bosom friend. But none is granted it save those who are steadfast and none is granted it save the owner of great happiness.} (Fusilat: 33-35).

Here, the “good deed” means the flexible style, and the “evil deed” means the cruel style. As a matter of fact, the Quran didn’t only distinguish between the two styles, but it also repelled the cruel one and adopted the peaceful one. Moreover, the Holy Quran attempts at showing the positive results of the peaceful style; one of its advantages is that it helps in converting the infidels into believers, and the enemies into friends. However, the Quran doesn’t forget to remind us of keeping our patience, awareness, solid personality and openness as the most important qualities in our argumentative and challenging battlefield: these verses confirm the above mentioned ideas:

{call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the better way.} (The Bee: 125).

{And argue not with the people of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God and your God is one, and unto Him we surrender} (The Spider: 46).

The first Ayah calls for a peaceful dialog. This requires the choice of the best styles in convincing the opponent, whether in words the polemicist uses, or in the expressions he resorts to preaching. Needless to say that the preacher should be skillful in the polemicist style he follows. As to the second Ayah, it represents a call for conversing points the heavenly religions meet on. This reveals that Islam is the religion that accepts and acknowledges the existence of the One God, all the heavenly messages, and the heavenly messengers as well, a fact that gives Islam the greatest value.

~sayyed Muhammad-Hussein Fadlullah

source: http://english.bayynat.org.lb/islamicinsights/taboos.htm

Muhammad - What is the Proof?

Question:

I asked you for "Proof" - You got proof or not?

And don't send me to any website to read stuff. Just tell me everything by email.

Give me proof! That is, if you think you have any proof. And look, I know there is God, and I learned this without your religious instructions and I am convinced the Bible is the Word of God.

My question is:

Where is the proof that Mohammad was a prophet of the God of Abraham, Moses and David? Please don't beat about the bush.

Answer:

Thank you for writing. Presently we are experiencing a very high level of email traffic. For this reason we are unable to give long, detailed and referenced answers to questions.

From the tone of your letter I assume you have had ample time to read the resources I have spent years developing and putting on the Internet for just such occasions as this and to help anyone serious enough to take the time to read and learn more about the topics we are discussing. We receive thousands of emails asking many questions, both from the non-Muslims and from Muslims as well, all seeking to come to a better understanding about this one man and what he brought to the world we all live in today.

The question you are asking about the proof of Muhammad, peace be upon him, is very much connected with the materials I have offered you. I will now assume you have reviewed this and we can safely say you are already in possession of the basic understanding and acceptance of belief in monotheism and the conclusions associated with this concept.

Muhammad, peace be upon him, could neither read nor write in any language. He was well known amongst his tribe members as the most honest, most reliable, most respectable and most moral of anyone they knew. He was always held in high regard until when at the age of 40 years old, he received a visit from the Arch Angel Gabriel, while fasting and praying in a cave in a mountain outside of Makkah.

The Angel commanded him to "Recite" and he replied saying, "I am not a reciter" and again he was commanded by the Angel to "Recite" - the Angel finally gave him the beginning of the Recitation (Quran - means recitation) and this continued for the next 23 years until the death of the prophet, peace be upon him.

The story of Muhammad, peace be upon him, is one of the most documented of all the lives of all the humans on earth. He has been referred to as one of the most amazing of humans ever to live in the history of the world. The references are on the sites I have offered you. I am sure you have already verified these sources and are content with them.

he best evidence for establishing Muhammad, peace be upon him, as the prophet and servant of Allah, is to study the history of this man and realize what he was saying and what he brought to all of mankind - peace. While I realize many of the detractors of Islam would immediately try to deny this and even claim the opposite was true, I would simply say, let us look to the authentic and testable evidences still remaining with us today.

This is one of the biggest of all statements to be made in this regard, "We still have the proof with us today."

Quran is memorized in every mosque in the world on a regular basis. This process is always done only in the Arabic language. Every Muslim on the earth knows at least some of the original words and grammar of the Quran and the way of putting it together correctly. All of us use on a daily basis.

The Quran exists.

(Let me further translate this for you) "The Recitation that came to him in the cave 1'400 years ago, is still today learned by listening to it being recited and then committing it to memory - exactly the same way and only in the original Arabic language - word for word."

The Quran does not change from generation to generation, or from country to country, nor from one civilization to another. No one has the authority to decide whether or not to add to or take away any part of the Quran, nor to authorize a new way to organize, categorize or restructure the layout, order or method of reciting and memorizing it.

It is estimated over 20'000'000 (twenty million) people living today, have memorized the Quran from cover to cover, chapter for chapter, line for line and word for word. At the risk of sounding a bit redundant, I again mention to you, this is all in classical Arabic language without any changes from one country to another or from one society to another. All of this and keep in mind please, eighty eight per cent (88%) of all Muslims do not speak Arabic, except for the Quran.

There are no "versions" of the Quran. Translations are never considered to be the actual Quran and are rejected by all scholars as being the same as the original. We still have the original, so why would we need to apologize and try to reconcile different "versions" of manuscripts or scrolls of the Quran, when we always have the entire Quran in Arabic in the minds and hearts of so many millions of people.

Here are a few points for consideration (taken from our websites):

Quran exists today as it did 1'400 years ago
Quran is recited today in the same classical Arabic as it was in the seventh century, A.D.
Quran contains amazing amount of knowledge not known to the people of those days.
Quran has prophecies and predictions many of which have already come to pass.
Quran memorized by more people than any other book on the planet.
Quran is recited by more people than any other book there is.
Quran has no mistakes, errors, corruptions or interpolations
Quran cannot be replicated.
Quran parts also can not be replicated.

Consider this, while Muslims have succumbed to the practice of dividing up into groups and sects, all of them still agree there is only ONE QURAN and it is in the classical Arabic, and it must be recited as an Arabic Recitation to be considered authentic.

Reflect on the main theme of the Quran and what it enjoins on those who are guided by it: "Worship God, alone without any partners and live the moral life of one who is in total surrender, submission, obedience, sincerity and peace with Almighty God, while giving all the creation proper respect and granting all people their rights.

Now keep in mind, I am not employed by anyone to produce this material and answer personal inquires about my life and my beliefs, and yet I do try to reply back to as many of the thousands of emails as I can. I have taken the time (twice) to reply back to you in the most respectful and honorable manner. I have offered the works of myself and a number of others working alongside me for your own examination. You are most welcome to visit the sources again and reflect for yourself and then make up your own mind whether or not this is something for you to continue researching.

There is an easy test you can preform yourself. For anyone who is already believing in God, all they have to do is go deep down inside your own heart and ask the One who created you in the first place for His guidance and if you are guided then you don't need to worry about it any more.

Peace and guidance from Above be unto you and your family,

~Yusuf Estes
Former Christian, & Federal Prison Chaplain

source: http://www.islamnewsroom.com/content/view/545/28/

Basis for Muslim Belief

Audio-version: GM_Basis_for_Muslim_Belief.mp3
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muFJX880cOc
YouTube (alternative link) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw7hUkppT9c

About the Author

Gary Miller (aka Abdul-Ahad Omar) shows how we can establish true faith by setting standards of truth. He illustrates a simple but effective method of finding out the right direction in our search for truth.

G.R. Miller is a mathematician and a theologian. He was active in Christian missionary work at a particular point of his life but he soon began to discover many inconsistencies in the Bible. In 1978, he happened to read the Qur'an expecting that it, too, would contain a mixture of truth and falsehood.

He discovered to his amazement that the message of the Qur'an was precisely the same as the essence of truth that he had distilled from the Bible. He became a Muslim and since then has been active in giving public presentations on Islam including radio and television appearances. He is also the author of several articles and publications about Islam.

Dilemma of Applying Reason
Setting Standards
Sign of God
The Big Bang Theory
Taking a Stand
The Expanding Heavens
The City of Iram
The Smallest Matter
Forgiveness
Predictions
Evidence of Divine Origin
The Two Phenomena
Use and Mention of Words
Jesus and Adam
Good and Evil
Occurrence of Words
Perfect Balance of Words
Best Explanation
Origin of the Qur'an
Challenge
Attributing it to the Devil
A Different Story
House Cleaning
A Prophet Like Moses
Paraclete
Followers of Jesus

The Basis for Muslim Belief

Dilemma of Applying Reason

Almost all of us have been faced with the questioning of a child by repeating one word over and over. He can be very frustrating to us as he asks "Why?" If you put a knife beyond his reach, he wants to know, "Why?" When you explain it is sharp, he asks "Why?" And so you explain, "in order to cut fruit," and he asks, "Why?" And so it goes. It illustrates the dilemma of applying reason. What we have to do when we apply reason is first to set standards of proof. We decide for ourselves, "What will be satisfied with if I find such and such and so and so that constitutes for me a final proof?". We have to decide on that first. What happens though, is that on the really important issues, the philosophical matters, thinkers set standards of proof and they take a look at their subjects and eventually they may arrive at their standards. They may arrive at the point which they say would constitute a proof. But then they ask for a proof of the proof.

Setting Standards

The key to avoiding an endless dissatisfaction is to satisfy ourselves about standards first; to satisfy ourselves that such and such are a list of criteria that constitute proof, satisfying proof, and then we test the subjects that we examine. In particular I will apply this to the Qur'an. Ask a thoughtful Christian why he is a Christian, and he will usually reply, "The miracle of the Resurrection." The basis for his belief being that about two thousand years ago a man died and he was raised from the dead. That is his miracle, his "touchstone", because all else depends on that. Ask a Muslim, "Well, what is your miracle? Why are you a Muslim? Where is your miracle?" and the Muslim can go over and take his miracle off the shelf and hand it over to you because his miracle is still with us today. It is the Qur'an; it is his "touchstone".

Sign of God

While all the prophets have their signs, Moses had the competition with the magicians and the Pharaoh, Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead and so on, one Sign was given to the last of the prophets. According to the Muslims, this is the Qur'an. And this one Sign is still with us. Does not that after all seem fair, that if prophet-hood is to end that the last prophet should bring something that stays with us so that, in fact, a Muslim who takes his religion seriously suffers no disadvantage to Muslims who lived fourteen centuries ago? Those people who kept company with the Prophet had access to no more of the necessary information than we have today. They had the Qur'an. That was the sign for them. It is still a sign to us today, the same miracle. Well, let us test the Qur'an. Suppose that if I say to a man, "I know your father." Probably he is going to examine the situation and see if it seems likely that I have met his father. If he is not convinced, he will start asking me questions like: "You know my father, you say, is he a tall man? Does he have curly hair? Does he wear glasses?," and so on. If 1 keep giving him the right answers to all these questions, pretty soon he is going to be convinced. "Well, I guess this man did meet my father like he said." You see the method.

The Big Bang Theory

Here in the Qur'an we have a book which claims that its author is one who was present at the beginning of the universe, at the beginning of life. So, we have a right to address that author and say, "Well, tell me something prove to me that you were there when the world began, when life began." The Qur'an gives us an interesting statement. It reads:

Have not the disbelievers seen that the Heavens and the Earth were one piece and we parted them? And We made every living thing from water. Will they not then believe? (21:30).

There are three key points here. First of all, it is the disbelievers who are mentioned as being those who would see that the heavens and the earth were one piece and then parted and would see that all life came to be made from water. As it happens, the universally accepted theory of the origin of the universe is now the Big Bang theory. It maintains that at one time all of the heavens and the earth were one piece, the monoblock as it is called. At a particular point in time, this "monoblock" burst and it continues to expand. This gives us the universe we have today. This was a recent discovery, a recent confirmation.

The Nobel-prize in Physics was awarded only a few years ago to those who confirmed the Big Bang origin of the universe. It was only about two hundred years ago that Leeuwenhoek and others perfected the microscope and discovered for the first time that living cells are composed of about eighty percent water. Those Nobel-prize winners and the Dutchman who invented the microscope were not Muslims. And yet they confirmed the vital statement that at one time the universe was one piece, that life was made from water, just as this verse says:

"Have not the disbelievers seen that the heavens and the earth were one piece and We parted them? And We made every living thing from water. Will They not then believe?" (21:30).

Well, this sounds like an answer to the question we started with when we ask the author. "Tell me something that shows me you were present when the universe began, when life began?"

Taking a Stand

Everyone must be committed to something. You have to put your foot down some place. It is impossible to be neutral at all times. There has to be a point of reference in the life of any thinking individual. You have to take a stand somewhere. The question, of course, is to put your foot down in the right place. Since there is no such thing as a proof of a proof of a proof and so on, in order to find the right place to put one"s foot down, to take a stand, we have to search and find that place and it is by a method that I hope to illustrate here.

It is a question of finding a point of convergence. You see, we search for truth in many places and we begin to know that we are succeeding in finding the truth if all our different paths start to converge; they start to come together at the same point.

If we are examining a book, looking for evidence of divine origin, and we are led to Islam, this is one path. If at the same time, we are examining the words of all those who were called prophets and we find ourselves led to Islam, we have a firmly grounded basis for belief We started looking for truth in two different places and found ourselves going down the path headed for the same destination.

No one ever proves all things. We have to stop at some point being satisfied with our standards as I have mentioned earlier. The point is, in order to take a stand and to be sure it is in the right place, we want to examine all the evidence around us and see where does it lead us and anticipate this point of convergence; to say it looks like all things are pointing to this place. We go to that place and then look at the data around us to see if it fits into place. Does it now make sense? Are we standing is on right place?

The Expanding Heavens

Let me first show more of our examination of the Qur'an, and then an examination of some words of prophets to find this point of convergence. In chapter fifty one, verse forty seven, it is mentioned that the heavens are expanding. As I mentioned earlier, this is in connection with the "Big Bang" origin of the universe, as it is usually called, and it was in 1973 that the Nobel-prize was awarded to three men who were confirming that, after all, the universe is expanding.

The comments of Muslims over the centuries on this verse which speaks of the heavens doing exactly that is very interesting. The wisest among them had stated that the words are very dear, that the heavens are expanding, but they could not imagine how that could be so. But they were content to leave the words as they were, to say: "Allah knows best."

The City of Iram

The Qur'an mentions a city by the name of Iram (89:7). The city of Iram has been unknown to history, so unknown that even some Muslim commentators, out of embarrassment or feeling apologetic for their religion, have commented on this mention of the city in the Qur'an as being perhaps figurative, that Iram was possibly a man and not a city.

In 1973 the excavation in Syria at the site of the ancient city of Eblus uncovered the largest collection of cuneiform writings on clay tablets ever assembled. In fact, the library discovered in Eblus contains more day tablets that are more than four thousand years old than all the other tablets combined from all the other sites.

Interestingly enough, you will find the details in the National Geographic of December 1978 (pp.730- , esp. p.736) which confirms that in those tablets the city of Iram is mentioned. The people of Eblus used to do business with the people of Iram. So here in 1973, comes confirmation of the fact that, after all, there really was an ancient city by that name, wherever it was. How did it find its way into the Qur'an, we might ask?

Those Muslims who may have offered their comments, trying to explain away this reference that they were uncomfortable with, were outsmarted by the author of the Qur'an. They are those who would outsmart the author of the Qur'an They would attempt it. Primarily, their activity would involve trying to produce the evidence that the author of this book had a primitive understanding of the world around us.

The Smallest Matter

For example, there is a word which is translated today usually in Arabic as zarrah. This is usually translated as "atom" and it is usually thought of in Arabic as being the smallest item available at one time. Perhaps the Arabs thought it was an ant or a grain of dust. Today the word is usually translated as "atom".

Those who would outsmart the author of the Qur'an have insisted that, well, the atom is not after all the smallest piece of matter because in this century it has been discovered that even the atom is made of still smaller pieces of matter. Is it then possible to outsmart the author who chose to use this word? Well, there is an interesting verse, in chapter ten, verse sixty one, which speaks of items the size of a zarrah, (atom) or smaller. There is no possibility that on this subject someone is going to say a new discovery has outdated the words of the Qur'an on the issue of the size of matter or the ultimate particles. The verse talks about items the size of a zarrah (atom) or smaller.

Forgiveness

Speaking of outsmarting the author of the Qur'an, the Islamic point of view is that when a man embraces Islam, his past is forgiven from the very beginning. This has been the invitation to Islam: come to Islam and all is forgiven from the past.

But consider this. There is only one enemy of Muhammad, peace be upon him, who is mentioned by name in the Qur'an: one Abu Lahab. In a short chapter of this book, he is condemned to punishment for his sins.

As it happens, the man himself was alive for many years after this revelation. He could therefore have finished Islam very easily. He needed only to go to the Muslims to announce his conversion. They had in their hands the revelation which said that this man is doomed to punishment. He could have gone to the Muslims and say- "I accept Islam, am I forgiven or not?"

He could have confused them so much as to finish this small movement because he would have been pointing out to them that they were now in confusion. The policy was instant forgiveness of the past but their own revealed scripture announced that he was not forgiven. As it was, Abu Lahab died without accepting Islam.

Predictions

In fact, the Qur'an confidently predicted a number of things only a few years before they came to pass. The fall of the Persian empire, for example, was predicted in spite of the fact that it had just suffered a serious military reverse. The evidence was all to the contrary. But in the chapter entitled Rom, the fall of the Persian empire who were recently victors over the Romans was predicted.

When all the Muslims in the world could meet in one room, the revelations were already discussing their future successes. In confidence, they were planning for the day when they would be in charge of the city where they were forced at that time to hide for their very lives.

Evidence of Divine Origin

Some people may like to find any number of things in the Qur'an. But an honest method in examining this book, looking for evidence of the Divine origin, is to take things at their value, to look for things that are dear and to look in those places where we are invited to look. Remember the passage that I quoted earlier

"Have not the disbelievers seen..."

This a common phrase of the Qur'an:

"0 Man, Have you not seen."

The invitation is to examine the evidence in these places. We are doing the sensible thing if we examine the words used to look for the doubted meaning and to find evidence of the Divine origin. Each one of us is an expert on something. One does not have to have a degree in a particular subject to decide that now, "I can take my expertise to the Qur'an and see what I can find." We all know something for sure from our own experience and life. I heard a story, several years ago in Toronto, of a man who was given the Qur'an to read. The man was a member of the merchant marines who spent his life on the sea. When he read a verse in the Qur'an describing the waves on the ocean,

"waves within waves and the darkness between,"

he was surprised because the description was just what he knew the situation to be. When he returned the Qur'an to the man who gave it to him to read, he asked him (because he was completely ignorant of the origins of Islam): "This Muhammad, was he a sailor?" Well, of course, he was quite surprised to know that the man spent his life in the desert. So he had to ask himself. "From where did he get this knowledge of what looks like on a stormy sea?"

We all know something that we can be confident of, and if we can turn to the Qur'an to read what it says about this subject, we are asking for confirmation of our belief in the Divine origin of the book.

The Two Phenomena

A friend of mine from the University of Toronto, had the experience of dealing with a man who was doing his doctorate in psychology. He chose as his subject: "The Efficiency of Group Discussion".

He suggested a number of criteria as to what constitutes an efficient discussion. He graphed the process; that is, he achieved a measure of the efficiency of all groups in their discussions according to an index by his system. On his graph he indicated the progress made by the discussion groups of various sizes.

The interesting thing that happened which he did not expect to find when he began his project was that, while there were some differences between the size of any given group and how well they did in discussions, he was surprised to find that groups of two were completely off his scale. In other words, when two people sit down to discuss something, they were so much more efficient than any other size of group that it went completely off his scale of measurement.

When my friend heard about this, something went on at the back of his mind. My friend, being a Muslim, thought there was something familiar here about this idea. The psychology researcher was not a Muslim. He was debating with himself on changing the topic of his thesis. Should he call it "The Phenomenon of Two" or "The Two Phenomena"? He was so surprised at his discovery.

Meanwhile, my friend found that there is a verse in the Qur'an, and he found it for himself on the same night, which speaks on discussions and the size of groups and how efficient they are. And maybe we should not be surprised to find that it is the groups that are two in numbers that do the best in achieving results. The verse in the Qur'an reads, concerning discussion groups, that when discussing the Qur'an one should sit alone and reflect on its meaning or discuss it in groups of two.

Use and Mention of Words

For myself, as I said everyone knows something for sure or has an interest and experience in life; my interest is in mathematics and logic. There is a verse in the Qur'an which says:

"This a scripture whose verses are perfected and then expounded." (11:1)

Which tells me that there are no wasted words in the Qur'an; that each verse is perfected and then it is explained. It could not be in a better form. One could not use fewer words to say the same thing or if one uses more words one would only be adding superfluous information.

This directed my attention to a particular mathematical subject, a logical subject, and I examined the Quran to see if I could find something of what I knew to be the case.

A revolution in logic has occurred in the last one hundred years, primarily over the difference between use and mention of words. A structure of logic seemed to be in danger of collapsing about a hundred years ago because it came to the attention of the people who studied these matters that the structure was not quite sound. The issue involved "self-reference" and the use and the mention of words which I will explain briefly.

Aristotle's law of the "excluded middle" was the statement that every statement is either true or false. About a hundred years ago, somebody pointed out that the law of the excluded middle is a statement and is therefore not a law after all. It could just as well be false as well as true.

This was a tangled knot for the logicians to untie until they came to understand the difference between the use and the mention of a word.

When we use a word, we consider its meaning. When we mention a word we are discussing the word itself. If I say Toronto is a large city, I mean Toronto, that place, is a large city. If I say Toronto has seven letters, I am talking about the word "Toronto". In the first case I used the word and in the second I mentioned the word. You see the distinction.

Jesus and Adam

Connecting these ideas and the idea that the Qur'an is composed of verses that are perfected and then expounded for us, consider the verse which says:

"The likeness of Jesus before Allah is as the likeness of Adam." (3:59)

It is very clear that what we have in this statement is an equation. This verse goes on to explain how that is true because they both came under unusual circumstances rather than having a mother and a father in the usual human reproductive way. But more than that, 1 got to considering the use of the mention of words.

The words are used clearly enough. Jesus is like Adam and by Jesus and Adam, we mean those two men. But what about the mention of the words? Was the author aware of the fact that if we were considering the words as words in themselves, this sentence also reads that "Jesus" is somehow like "Adam". Well, they are not spelt with the same letters; how can they be alike in this revelation? The only answer came to me fairly quickly and I took a look at the index of the Qur'an.

The index of the Qur'an has been made available only since 1945. This book was the result of years of work by a man and his students who assembled a book which lists every word in the Qur'an and where it can be found.

So, when we look up the word Isa (Jesus), we find it in the Qur'an twenty-five times. When we look up Adam, we find it in the Qur'an twenty-five times. The point is that they are very much alike in this book. They are equated. So, following up on this idea, I continued to examine the index looking for every case where something was set up as an equation, where the likeness of something was said to be the likeness of some other thing. And in every case, it works. You have for example a verse which reads:

"The likeness of those who reject our signs is as the likeness of the dog." (7:176)

Well, the phrase in Arabic for "the people who reject our signs" could be found in the Qur'an exactly five times. And so is the Arabic word for "the dog" (al-kalb). And there are several instances of exactly the same occurrence.

It was some months after I found this for myself that a friend of mine, who is continuing this investigation with me, made a suggestion that there are also some places in the Qur'an where one thing is said to be not like another thing.

As soon as he mentioned this up to me, we both went for the index and had a quick look at several places where one thing is said to be not like another thing and counted their occurrence in the Qur'an. We were surprised and maybe should not have been to find that, after all, they do not match up. But an interesting thing does happen. For example, the Qur'an makes it very clear in the verse that trade is not like interest. The two words will be found six times for one and seven for the other. And so it is in every other case.

When one thing is said to be not like another, they occur for a difference of one time. It would be five of one and four of the other, or seven of one and eight of another.

Good and Evil

There is one interesting verse which, I felt, spoke directly to me from right off the page. It mentions two words in Arabic, al-khabeeth (the evil), and al-taib (the good). The verse reads:

"Say, the evil and the good are not comparable, even though the abundance of evil will surprise you. So be mindful of your duty to Allah, 0 Man of understanding, that you may succeed." (5:100)

Well, I had a look at those two words in Arabic, the evil and the good, and found it in the Qur'an that they both occur seven times. Yet the verse here is saying that they are not comparable. I should not expect to find that they occur the same number of times. But what does the rest of this verse say?

"The evil and the good are not comparable. The abundance of the evil will surprise you"

and it did for there were too many of them. But it continues:

"So be mindful of your duty to Allah, 0 Man of understanding, that you may succeed."

So press on. Use your understanding and you will succeed. That is what the verse said to me. Well, I found the answer in one verse further on where it reads:

"Allah separates the evil from the good. The evil He piles one on top of the other, heaping them all together." (8:37)

Here is the solution to the difficulty. While we have seven occurrences of al-khabeeth (the evil) which matches up with the occurrences of al-taib (the good), according to the principle of this verse, evil is separated from good and is piled one on top of the other and heaped all together. We do not count them as seven separate instances.

Occurrence of Words

A favorite difficulty, or supposed difficulty, which critics like to cite or have cited in the past years concerning the Qur'an is that, apparently to their thinking, the author of this book was ignorant because he advised the Muslims to follow the lunar year instead of the solar year. The critics say the author was unaware of the difference in the length of years, that if one follows twelve lunar months one loses eleven days every year.

The author of the Qur'an was well aware of the distinction between the length of the solar year and the lunar year. In chapter eighteen, verse twenty-five it mentions three-hundred years and gives their equivalent as three-hundred and nine years. As it happens, three-hundred solar years is equal to three-hundred and nine lunar years.

Let us go back to my original scheme of the occurrence of words in the Qur'an. The Arabic word for "month", shahar, will be found twelve times in the Qur'an. There are twelve months in a year. If we find twelve months, how many days should we expect to find? The word in Arabic is yaum, and as it happens you will find that the word occurs three-hundred and sixty-five times in the Qur'an.

As a matter of fact, the original issue which had me interested in looking up the occurrence of months and days was this distinction between the solar year and the lunar year. Well, for twenty-five centuries it has been known that the relative positions of the sun, moon and earth coincide every nineteen years. This was discovered by a Greek by the name of Meton, and it is called the Metoniccycle. Knowing this, I looked again to the index for the word "year", sanah, and found, sure enough, that it occurs, in the Qur'an nineteen times.

Perfect Balance of Words

Now, what is the point of this perfect balance of words? For myself, it shows the author was well aware of the distinction between using words and mentioning words, a fine logical point. But more than that, it indicates the preservation of this book.

After giving a lecture on the subject of the Qur'an, I touched on some of these subjects and a questionnaire from the audience afterwards said: "How do we know we still have the original Qur'an. Maybe pieces of it have been lost or extra parts been added?" I pointed out to him that we had pretty well covered that point because since these items, the perfect balance of words in the Qur'an, have come to light only in this generation, anybody who would have lost the portion of the book, hidden some of it or added some of their own would have been unaware of this carefully hidden code in the book. They would have destroyed this perfect balance.

It is interesting to note too that, well, such a thing might be possible to organize today by the use of a computer to coordinate all words so that whatever thought you might have as to a meaning of a sentence or however you might construe an equation out of a sentence, you could check for yourself and the book will always have the balance of words.

If that were possible today, if it were possible fourteen centuries ago, why would it be done and then left hidden and never drawn to the attention of those who first saw this book? Why it would be left with the hope of the author who contrive this, that maybe in many centuries someone will discover it and have a nice surprise? It is a scheme that does not make sense.

Best Explanation

We are told in the Quran that no questionnaire will come to the Muslims with the question for which a good answer has not been provided, and the best explanation for whatever his question. This verse says:

"For everything they say we are given something to go back to them and reply." (25:33)

We looked again to the index of the Qur'an and we found that the word, qalu (they say), is found three-hundred and thirty-two times. Now, what would be the natural counterpart? The Arabic word, qul, which is the command "say" and you will find at the index it also occurs three-hundred and thirty-two times.

Origin of the Qur'an

An interesting feature of the Qur'an is that it replies to its critics as to its origin. That is, no one has yet come up with a suggestion as to where this book came from which is not commented on within the book itself.

In fact, the new Catholic Encyclopedia, under the heading Quran, mentions that over the centuries there had been many theories as to where this book came from. Their conclusion: today, no sensible person believes any of these theories. This leaves the Christians in some difficulty. You see, all the theories suggested so far, according to this encyclopedia, are not really acceptable to anyone sensible today. They are too fantastic.

Where did the book come from? Those who have not really examined the Qur'an usually dismissed it as being, as they say, a collection of proverbs or aphorisms, sayings that one man used to announce from time to time. They imagined that there was a man who, from time to time during the day, will think of some witty little sayings and spit it out and those around him will quickly write it down and eventually these were all collected and became the Qur'an.

Those who read the Qur'an will find that it is not anything like that at all. The collection of things said by the Prophet is the subject and the content of the Hadith. But the subjects and contents of the Qur'an are all in a form of a composition and explanation. I cite as an example the chapter, Yusuf, which is an entire story in great detail about one particular episode or one portion of the life of one man. It is a composition.

It is for this reason that virtually all those who have actually examined the Qur'an usually refer to it as being the product of the authorship as attributed to Muhammad and his "co-adjudicators". These were supposed to be people who would sit, with him and composed the Qur'an. You see, they imagined that the Qur'an was composed by a committee.

They acknowledged that there was too much information and it was too well composed for one man to have assembled. So, they imagined that a committee of men used to meet regularly, brought their various sources of information, composed something and then handed to this man and told him, "Go to the people tomorrow, this is your revelation." In other words, it was a fraud concocted by a group of people. But what do we know about fraud? The Qur'an reminds us as it says:

"Say, now the truth has come, and falsehood neither invents anything nor restores anything." (34:49).

It is hard to translate it into English precisely, but what this verse is telling us is that falsehood is not the source of a new thing. A new and truthful thing cannot come from falsehood and falsehood does not restore, to our minds, the facts. Truth is in agreement with facts. Falsehood is something else. So, falsehood is empty. If something is born in fraud, it will never bring us new information. It will never endure; it will only collapse over a period of time.

Challenge

Another interesting verse is a challenge which is addressed to those non-believers. It reads:

"Have they not considered the Qur'an, if it came, other than Allah, surely they will find in it many inconsistencies." (4:82)

Here is a challenge to the reader. If you think you have an explanation where this book came from, have another look at the book. Surely you will be able to uncover some inconsistencies to support your case.

Imagine a student submitting a term paper or a final exam and then writing at the bottom of the page a note to his teacher "You will find no mistakes in this paper. There are no mistakes on this exam." Can you imagine the teacher letting that rest? The teacher would probably not sleep until uncovering some inconsistency after a challenge like that. It is not the way human beings speak. They do not offer challenges like that. But here we have it in the Qur'an, a direct challenge saying. "If you have a better idea as to where this book came from, here"s all you need to do. Find some inconsistencies."

There are critics who make the attempt, critics who try to say the Qur'an contains inconsistencies. A publication that came to my attention recently suggested that the Qur'an was contradictory on the subject of marriage, because in one place, it says:

"Don't marry more than one wife unless you can provide for them all,"

and in another place it says:

"Don't marry more than four."

They see this as a contradiction. What they have is a counter-distinction. In one case, the qualification for marrying more than one has been given. In the other case, a limitation on how many may be married is given. There is no contradiction.

Critics are too quick to grab hold of something, give it an interpretation, and then offer it as an excuse to escape the reality of this document.

For critics who would attack the Qur'an and insist it contains mistakes, we can use the same method as in our reply to Christians who claim that Jesus is on record as claiming to be equal to God. Remember the three categories of evidence offered. The evidence offered was insufficient, ambiguous or impossible.

You see, if someone cites a verse from the Qur'an, trying to show that it is a mistake, we only need to show that the verse cited is insufficient to establish that there is a mistake or we need to show that the verse cited has other meanings than the one given by the critic or we can demonstrate that the verse cited cannot possibly have the interpretation which the critic is giving it. It will always fall into one of these three categories.

Attributing to the Devil

I had the experience, on one occasion, describing some of the contents in the Qur'an to a man who did not know the book I was talking about. He sat next to me, with the cover turned over. I just told him about the book, what it contained and told him it was not the Bible. His conclusion was, the book was miraculous. This man was a minister in a Christian Church. He said, "Yes, that book could not possibly have originated with the man and therefore it must come from the devil, because it's not the Bible."

The Qur'an comments on this suggestion in chapter twenty-six, verse two-hundred and eleven as to those who would suggest that the book came from the devil. It points out that it does not quite suit him, does it? Is this how the devil misleads people? He tells them, worship none but God, he insists that they fast, that they practice charity. Is this how the devil misleads people?

Compare the attitude of someone like this, to the attitude of the Jews who knew Jesus and opposed him until the very end. There is an episode reported in the Bible where Jesus raised a man from the dead, one Lazarus, who had been dead for four days. When Lazarus came out of the tomb, alive again, those Jews who were watching what did they do? Did they suddenly say that this man is a true prophet and become believers? No, the Bible says they immediately discussed among themselves that "since this man is working on his signs soon everyone will believe in him. We've got to find a way to kill him," and they attributed his miraculous powers to the devil. He raised that man by the power of the devil.

Now, the Christians who read that episode will feel very sorry for those Jews who had clear evidence right before their very eyes and attributed the miracles to the devil. Does it not appear that they may be doing the same thing when we illustrate what we have in the Qur'an and their final excuse is only. "It originated with the devil."

A Different Story

There are those who insist that the Qur'an was copied, that it originated in Christian and Jewish sources. As a matter of fact, a book published in recent years called Worshipping the Wrong God has stated, as though it were a fact, that after the first revelation of the Qur'an came to Muhammad, peace be upon him, that his wife died and so he quickly married a Jew and a Christian, and this is where he drew the rest of his sources for his book.

Well, they have the facts partly right. It was ten years after the first revelation of the Qur'an that his wife died, and it was another ten years after that when the Qur'an was virtually completed that he married a Jew and a Christian.

Did he copy from Jewish and Christian sources? In the Qur'an, the ruler of Egypt who opposed Moses is known as Fir'aun, not Pharaoh. The Jews and Christians have always said "Pharaoh". It is easy for an Arab to say "Pharaoh". But in the Qur'an, it is Fir'aun, with an "n". Why? Surely the Jews and the Christians who surrounded the Muslim community must have teased them about that and said: "You've got the word wrong. It's "Pharaoh" and not Fir'aun." But they insisted on it and it continues that way in the Qur'an, Fir'aun.

As it happens, the historical writings of Herodotus, the Greek historian, exist to this day, and Herodotus comments on the ruler of Egypt, being in his day and in the centuries before him, one man who went by the title of Fir'aun.

Did the book copy from the Christian sources? The Qur'an insists that Jesus was not crucified, that this was only an illusion, but that the Jews who thought they crucified Jesus were mistaken because it was not really so. Christians would have no part of that. As it happens, the idea that Jesus was not really crucified is really very ancient and can be traced back to the first century. But Christians who believed that were eliminated as heretics within the first two-hundred years after the time of Jesus and they were not teaching this doctrine anywhere around the Arabian Peninsula fourteen centuries ago.

Could the author of the Qur'an have been copying from Christian sources when he says that Jesus spoke to man as a babe (3:46) and in later life? The Arabic word used indicates that he was still speaking to man and teaching to them in his forties. The Christians have always maintained that Jesus was gone by the time he was thirty-three. It indicates that there could have been no copying. In fad, a man would have to be stubborn and insists on the points as explained in the Qur'an in the face of Christian opposition who would have said: "No! No! It wasn't like that. We tell the story differently."

House Cleaning

Now we go to the words of the prophets themselves, which represent another path that leads to Islam. In the Persian scriptures, which have been around for thousands of years, we read:

"When the Persians should sink so low in morality, a man will be born in Arabia whose followers will upset their throne, religion and everything. The mighty stiff-necked ones will be overpowered. The house which was built and in which many idols have been placed will be purged of idols and people will say their prayers facing towards it. His followers will capture the towns of the Farsi, Entaus and Balkh, and other big places round about. People will embroil with one another. The wise men of Persia and others will join his followers." (Desature no.14)

The Muslims recognize this very quickly because the Ka'bah, the building which all Muslims face in prayers everyday, was at one time filled with idols and it was part of the mission of Muhammad, peace be upon him, to purge the house of idols. They were destroyed and the house sits there cleansed of idols till today. It was in the next generation, after the time of the Prophet that the wise men of Persia and others did join his followers.

A Prophet like Moses

In the Bible, in Deuteronomy chapter eighteen, we have the words of Moses who reports that God told him that He would raise up a prophet, from among the brothers of the Israelites, like Moses.

Christians wish to apply this to Jesus, to say he was the prophet like Moses. It is uncomfortable for them to recognize, however, that Jesus was not very much like Moses and Jesus had no father, no wife, no children; he did not die of old age, and he did not lead a nation; all these things Moses had or did. But they say, well, Jesus will return; he will return as a victorious person, and so he will be more like Moses. Do they really expect he will return to also acquire a father and a wife and children and then die of old age? Not usually. Moreover, Jesus was an Israelite. The passage of scripture says that this prophet that was foretold would be raised up among the brothers of the Israelites, not from the Israelites.

In the third chapter of Acts, the disciple Peter speaks to a crowd of people and explains that Jesus has been taken up and he is in heaven. He will remain in Heaven and he cannot return until all the things that were promised by God come to pass. So what are we still waiting for, does he tell the crowd? He quotes this very saying of Moses, saying.

"For God will raise up a prophet from among the brothers of the Israelites like Moses..."

The point is very clear. Christians like to see this prophet as being Jesus. But read carefully Acts chapter three, what it says is that Jesus awaits a return. He cannot return until the fulfillment of this prophecy, that another prophet has to come. Jesus spoke of it himself and the words survived, just barely, but they survived in the Bible. Jesus spoke of God sending another "Paraclete".

Paraclete

There is a lot of argument over the meaning of this word "Paraclete". For now we can leave that aside. What is a "Paraclete"? It does not matter. The first letter of John shows that Jesus was a "Paraclete". He is called a "Paraclete" and we have Jesus promising another "Paraclete" is going to be sent.

We lose a lot by this word "another" in English because it is ambiguous. If someone's car breaks down, and it is a Toyota, and I say, "I'II go and get you another car," maybe I mean, "I'II go and get you another Toyota because this one you have is broken," or maybe I mean, "Forget Toyota, they're no good; I'II go and get you a Datsun." It is an ambiguous word.

But the Greeks had a word for it. When they meant "another" of the same kind, they said aloes. When they meant another of a different kind, they said heteroes. The important thing here is that, when Jesus, who was himself a Paraclete, said "God will send you another Paraclete" he used the word aloes, not heteroes.

Christians want to say that this other "Paraclete" that has been sent was different from Jesus. It was not a man, it was a spirit. What Jesus said was: "God will send you another one like me, another man." Muslims believe that Muhammad is the fulfillment of this prophecy by Jesus. The Qur'an says that this man is mentioned in the scriptures of the Jews and the Christians (see 7:157).

Christians came to expect the return of Jesus because of a Jewish misunderstanding. "Messiah" and "Son of Man" have been given special significance by the Jews, even though many people were called by this same name as in the Bible. The Jews came to expect a victorious leader. When Jesus did not turn out to be quite what many expected, they hatched the idea that he would return some day and fulfill all these prophecies.

Followers of Jesus

Suppose that someone observed Jesus two-thousand years ago, and he left this planet, or he went to sleep for two-thousand years and returned today to look for the followers of Jesus, who would he find? Who would he recognize? Christians? I conclude with just this food for thought: the Bible says very clearly that Jesus used to fast. Do Christians fast? Muslims fast; it is obligatory one month every year. The Bible says that Jesus prayed by touching his forehead to the ground. Do Christians pray in this manner? Muslims do. It is characteristic of their prayer and no one on earth is probably ignorant of that fact.

According to Jesus, he told his disciples to greet one another with the expression, "Peace be with you." Do the Christians do that? Muslims do, universally, whether they speak Arabic or not. The greeting for one to another is Assalamu'alaikum (peace be with you).

The brother of Jesus in the Book of James, stated that no man should suggest what he is about to do or highlight his plans for the next few days in anyway without adding the phrase "if God wills." Do not say "I will go here and there, do this and that" without adding the phrase "if God wills." Do Christians do that? Muslims do, whether they speak Arabic or not. If they so much as suggest they are going downtown to pick up some groceries, they will add, Insha-Allah, which in Arabic means, "If God wills."

These conclude my thoughts on this subject. May Allah guide us always closer to the truth.

~Dr. Gary Miller

source: http://www.islam101.com/dawah/basisOfBelief.htm

The Teachings of Islam

Excellent Moral Values of the Believers

Loving For Allah's Sake

Why Are Most of the Muslims Fundamentalists and Terrorists?

A Cat in a Wild World

Religious Pluralism & Different Interpretations of Religion

We Continue to Coexist

Dialog With the Other: No Taboos in Dialog

Muhammad - What is the Proof?

Basis for Muslim Belief

Subscribe in a Reader

Subscribe via e-mail

Blog Archive

About Me

Current Moon Phase

Number of Visitors

Followers

NetworkedBlogs

Recommended Sites