Excellent Moral Values of the Believers 2:
Excellent Moral Values of the Believers 3:
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:
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 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,}
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 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}.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
