Islam in Crisis (part 1)

Raw Dust #135 I am not sure which muslim clergy you refer to that has consensus on this, but they are obviously unaware (or unwilling to accept) the Quranic words to the contrary: the Quran says that nothing has been revealed to the prophet muhammed that has not already been revealed to Moses. Nor do they seem aware (or will to accept) the fundamental point made by the Quran that people of ALL religions (and it specifically mentions Christianity and Judaism, but also the Sabians) will be treated equally.
I keep repeating these things on chowk for the heck of it, but frankly I am really disappointed at the lack of understanding of the very religion that they claim to adhere to on the part of so many muslims. There is an ocean of ignorance and a mountain of disregard for the fundamentals of Islam among muslims.

Urstruly #104:

“So he appointed an arbiter chosen by Jews themselves, and who himself was a Jew to decide their fate. He gave his verdict based on Mosaic law which prescribed death of all adult males. That resulted in the death of 700 Jews.”

You further stated

#130:

“No it was Mosaic Justice - their law and their judge. I think you have a problem with reading comprehension.”


No Sir! You are completely misstating what actually happened. He was neither chosen by the Jews, nor was he a Jew himself and neither was the verdict based on Mosaic Law.

His name was Sa’d b. Mu’adh of the al-Aws tribe. A muslim who had been injured during the battle of the trench, with an arrow in his leg. He was selected only to satisfy the al-Aws who were the muwali of the Banu Qurayzah. They knew which way he was going to rule even before the case was presented to him.

Al Tabari provides a detailed account.

Volume VIII- Page 33.

“In the morning they submitted to the judgment of the M o G. The al-Aws jumped up and said:” M o G, they are our clients(mawali), not clients of Al Khazraj (he had previously given the Banu Qaynuqa to Abdallah b. Ubayy of the Al Khazraj as they were their confederates). Therefore when the al-Aws spoke to him, the M o G said, “People of the al-Aws, will you not be satisfied if one of your own men passes judgement on them?” “Yes,” they said. So he (M o G) said, “it shall be entrusted to Sa’d b. Mu’adh.”……….. They brought him to the M o G, saying “Abu ‘Amr, treat your clients well, for the M o G has put you in charge of the matter only that you may treat them well.” After they had plied him with many such requests, he said, “ the time has come for Sa’d for the sake of God not to be influenced by anyone’s reproach.” Then one of his tribesmen went back to the dwelling place of the Banu ‘Abd al-Ashhal and announced to them the death of the of the Banu Qurayzah before Sa’d b. Mu’adh reached them because of the words he had heard from him.”

Raw Dust

Actually Our Master sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam did not revoke the legitimacy of all the commandments of the Torah and the Injil but only some portions as was commanded by Allah. Islam came as the last link in the revealed religions and as such there is a lot of the Mosaic Law and the Christian Law which was kept and added to as well as some which was changed. So how dare you accuse Allah`s Habib sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam of what you have (I cannot even bring myself to type the word)--you should repent! You will get your just rewards for this comment in the Next World. My blood is boiling right now so I better stop...

Re: UrsTruly #130

Wanted to correct you on your mosaic justice argument. As Muhammad founded his own doctrine derived largely from Judeo-Christian beliefs; he also duly revoked the legitimacy of these old doctrines. On this there is a concensus in islamic clergy across the board.
Need i say you should not have adopted this line of argument, extending of which only makes Mohammad hypocritical.

Thanks.

Tehsinabbasi #133 My concern is that you are too pessimistic, and seem determined to accept the worst possible situation.
For example, I provided you with a common sense understanding of the Quran that makes it clear that it is the Quranic message that constitutes the divine message, not the actions of the prophet. You accept this, then turn around and say that what you (or I) think is not important but what the vast majority of the muslims think. There are a couple of problems with your view here:
1. The truth, as you understand it, is what is important. What you think that a billion other people think is not important.
2. You stereotype the attitudes of 1.2 billion muslims. The fact is that these muslims include millions of small time businessmen, educators, hard working laborers, some big time businessmen (including the richest man in India, I may add), international civil servants, small farmers, unemployed youth looking for jobs and desiring to raise families, bureaucrats, doctors, lawyers...the list goes on. To attribute to all of them the same mindset as that of a village maulvi indicates that you need to get more realistic.
3. Superstitions, irrationality, bigotry, hatreds, stealing and other things that you mention are to be found among all backward people of the world. Muslims do not have a monopoly on this. Ask Jay - he has been trying to corner the bigotry and hate market on chowk for several months now, and he is not even a muslim.

Tahmad:

You have every right to claim a commonsense understanding or a logical approach to the Quran and its message but it is completely immaterial whether I agree with you or not. What is more important is the vast majority of the Ummah what they believe. I am afraid I will have to agree with Urstruly and Naqshbandi on that score. You cannot separate the message from the Messenger like Urstruly says and Mr. Naqshbandi has laid out quite succinctly the position of the majority. This is exactly what Blasphemy laws are designed for – quash open debate, discourage dissent, enquiry, accentuate the positive hide the negative. Pakistan is a classic case for all this.

Forget religion for a second, next sacred cow became Quaid e Azam. In school I did not study a single negative point, forget that, something that could be deemed controversial about the man. Beyond that there was no room for official criticism. Till today kids are not given any critique on the reasons why we lost the 1971 war. The results are self evident. The internet has exposed the deplorable level of education our kids have, especially in the humanities.

But why is the Prophet’s history and the Medinat state so important and why cant we just ignore it as nothing more then a passing interest? Because we cannot design laws in an Islamic State which in any way contradict the laws of that time. This is precisely why it is the old Mullah who marries an underage girl – because he finds religious sanction. I have never heard of an MIT graduate who at age 50 decided to marry an 11 year old girl. More importantly though it gives the strong draw legal sanction to practice tyranny on the hapless masses under their sway. You may know yourself of the Wadera in Sindh who has his serfs and kept women, while he also pays for the mosque and the muezzen in his village.

My earlier post, regarding the Ahle Hadith looting banks and abducting Barelvi girls and keeping them as slaves. Where do you think they derive their legitimacy?

If it was good enough for the Prophet to do it, it is good enough for us. To quote Mr. Urstruly, “Shit Happens”!

Naqshbandi:

“Therefore, as a Sunni Muslim, I say that whatever the Beloved Messenger of Allah alayhi salatu wa salaam decided about the Jews of Banu Qurayza was absolutely correct and just and no amount of political correctness will make a Sunni change his mind. Case closed.”

You refer your post to Rashid did you mean Tehsinabbasi, please clarify.
Reply – No Sir! Case is not closed but your mind is. If you happen to be in America, I would like to know, what are you doing in Dar al Harb? O hypocrite! Follow the Beloved Messenger’s example and kill, kill, kill!!!

Tehsinabbasi #128 You write ``ordinary men, individual beliefs (separation of mosque and state) so long you don’t tell others what to do, I have no problem with it.``. So on the basic point of the separation of church and state we agree. Indeed, there is no room for an organized priesthood in Islam (per the Quran) and as such there cannot be a question of separating church (or mosque) from state.
Second, you seem to consider the Sunnah to be a part of the message of Islam, and I (based on a logical understanding of the Quran) do not. Indeed, it is you (not I) who is unable to get rid of the ideas drilled into your mind by maulvis. If you were and you thought for yourself, you would have had no problem explicitly agreeing with me in saying that the Quran is the only source of divine revelation in Islam, and the prophet is a messenger who conveyed this message and no more and no less. I say this based on the Quran, you are unable to separate the sunnah from Islam since you have simply accepted what you have been taught by others even if it contradicts a common sense understanding of the Quran. I hope you will reflect a bit on this in between the times you are setting ancient history straight.

tehsinabasi

How convenient to ``abrogate`` a treaty right in the middle of a war when for one participant of the treaty the war means life or death. It fails the purpose of having a treaty in the first place, doesn`t it. I think it was unlitimate cowardice on Jews` part to enjoy the benefits of peace and prosperity that the treaty brought to them and which our Prophet turned into a reality, and as the time of test and tribulation came they abrogated it.

Was this enough for the Prophet to cut of their heads all 700 of them and sell their women and children in slavery? Islamic Justice?


No it was Mosaic Justice - their law and their judge. I think you have a problem with reading comprehension. Logically if you look at the whole episode, didn`t Jews took their chances to eliminate all Muslims and sell their children in slavery when they ``abrogated`` the treaty? They had their chances, they lost. Too bad. Shit happens.

rashid i have read yourarguments and there really is nothing new here: for some time now those who wish to destroy Islam from its roots have been talking about re-interpreting the Qur`an Sharif from the point of view of modern Western ideologies so as to be able to have a secular society and still be able to give it the title, ``Islamic``. The Qadianis did this by explaining away the miracles in the Qur`an as natural phenomenon, electromagnetic energy (for jinns!!) and other such absurdities and thus interpreting the qur`an in a way no Muslim had ever done before. And they are not the only ones to attempt this: `Syed` Ahmed Khan Aligarhi and the Nadwis tried the same and people are doing so to this day.

As a traditional Muslim who is from Ahlus Sunnat w`al Jama`at let me say that for us the person who understood the Qur`an the best was the Beloved Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam and after him the Companions who learnt directly from His lordship sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam` then those from amongst the Tabi`een and then the Taba` Tabi`een and these are the Salaf. Thus our understanding of the Qur`an has to be the same as that of these blessed generations and the people who have this correct understanding throughout Islamic history have always been the Ahlus Sunnah comprising today of the followers in aqaid of the Two Imams Al Ash`ari and al Maturidi and in fiqh of the 4 madhhabs.
This is ``Islamic orthodoxy`` and what we believe about the Koran Sharif and what every SUNNI has always believed--and which is what the Sahaba and the Beloved Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam believed-is that is the uncreated Speech of Allah [qadeem; kalam Allah]. Anyone who believes it is created [makhluq] is a Kafir by unanimity.
That is why the Mutazilites who were the first sect to come up with this idea of the `createdness of the Qur`an majid` are considered heretics and that is why all of the great scholars rejected this idea even though Mamun tried to impose it by force which led to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal radhi Allah anhu to refute him and thus become a martyr. Interestingly of the two orthodox Imams of Aqidah al Ash`ari used to be a Mutazilite until he saw the Beloved Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam in a dream and then changed his views becoming one of the greatest refuters of the Mutazilites. Thus the opposition to this heresy was not political but theological and no Sunni scholars have ever accepted it. The Shias on the other hand took it--ie Mutazilite ideology-- on board almost totally including in the matter of the Koran.

Therefore Muslims will always believe the KOran to be Eternal and the Speech of Allah and always have done.

As for the Beloved Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam is and always will be the perfect role model for Muslims. Anyone who disputes this does not speak for the vast majority of Muslims and is a lone voice. Indeed whether such a person belongs in the fold of Islam is itself an issue.

Therefore the reason we are not debating with you is not because we cannot but because it is pointless.

Therefore, as a Sunni Muslim, I say that whatever the Beloved Messenger of Allah alayhi salatu wa salaam decided about the Jews of Banu Qurayza was absolutely correct and just and no amount of political correctness will make a Sunni change his mind. Case closed.

Because every action of the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam was in agreement with the Will of Allah! Indeed whatever he sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam decides becomes the Will of Allah for:

Khuda ki raza chahitay hain Do `Aalam
Khuda chahita hai raza e Muhammad! (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam)

(Ala Hazrat)

Allah confirms this in the Qur`an:

Wa la sawfa yu`itika rabbuka fa tard.a

Soon we will give you so much that you will be pleased (Quran Surah 93)

Tahmad

“Your posts implicitly link these HISTORICAL EVENTS to the message of Islam. I am explicitly rejecting this link,”

Please reread what I wrote, “So you have already accepted that the Prophet’s life is not the practical example of the embodiment of a perfect life. So for you, Sunnah does not hold any meaning or importance. Or is it just the sayings of the Prophet that are important and not what he actually did.”

For the past 1400 years including all the years that you have spent in Dinyat class and listening to the Maulvi before Jumma prayers a sanitized version of the events that I have been mentioning have been drilled into your head. Moreover what is the ideal Islamic state which the Talibans in Afghanistan, The Saudis and other Islamists are trying to achieve. Please pay attention, all their actions point towards them trying to create a Medinat state as established by the Prophet. I am illustrating the things that were wrong with that state and why efforts made by today’s Muslims to go in that direction result in their societies turning into medieval tyrannies.

“and explicitly saying that it is the VALUES that ordinary men are expected to live up to, as reflected in the Quran, that is the message of Islam.”

Now you change the equation – ordinary men, individual beliefs (separation of mosque and state) so long you don’t tell others what to do, I have no problem with it.

Urstruly: “I rest my case.”

Reply: You have no case. Abrogation does not imply violation. It means from here on we do not have a contract. After abrogating the contract they could have gone to war with the Muslims but they didn’t. Was this enough for the Prophet to cut of their heads all 700 of them and sell their women and children in slavery? Islamic Justice?

tehsinabbasi #123 You say ``The discussion I am participating in is about why Islam is in Crisis. ``
Surely then it is relevant to provide the link between historical events circa. 622 AD that you dwell upon, and muslims today. Your posts implicitly link these HISTORICAL EVENTS to the message of Islam. I am explicitly rejecting this link, and explicitly saying that it is the VALUES that ordinary men are expected to live up to, as reflected in the Quran, that is the message of Islam.
Why are you not willing to be more explicit in what you mean??

Jay #124 Hmmmmmm....in addition to lithium, I shall have to prescribe this new drug to keep you from becoming a catatonic bore as well.
PS: Hope brother Thakeray has recovered from his diarrhea. Also give my regards to your younger brother Modi, and ask him if how many low-class hindu converts to Islam he burnt today.

tahmed 120 and 89

This is precisely what I am telling, Tahmed is the classic mullah with beard in the tummy. He is really asking for the blasphemy laws, to lynch taehsinabbasi. He cannot accept a muslim criticising islam, the foundation of blasohemy laws. It is this attachment to everything in the book that prevents tahmed from saying that muslims should not go around killing kafirs.

True colours are hard to hide.

no_more_a_slave #120 if you have a logical problem with my statement, please point that out. namecalling is not an argument.