“The Whole of It is from Our Lord”
August 25, 2006 on 11:11 am | In Questions about Islam, Qur'an, Correcting Misperceptions about Islam/Muslims | No CommentsThe following question was asked about how much one could believe that the Qur’an was not written by Allah (swt) and still remain a Muslim:
And if some of it [the Qur’an] was “written by man,” or a person believes that some of it was “written by man,” how much of it must fall in that category before that person is, in your view “not a Muslim.”
My answer:
The answer is quite simple: belief that any part of the Qur’an was “written by man” will cause one to fall out of Islam (i.e., become “not a Muslim”).
“And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: ‘We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:’ and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.’” (3:7)
Islam is not a “cafeteria religion” where one can pick and choose which parts to believe in.
Peace and Love in the Qur’an
April 6, 2006 on 10:28 pm | In Qur'an, Correcting Misperceptions about Islam/Muslims | No CommentsDr. Juan Cole, over at Informed Comment, normally blogs about modern Middle Eastern politics and current events. However, he’s recently written up some very good explanations (tafsir) regarding five (so far) Qur’anic ayat, under the general heading, Peace and Love in the Qur’an. The five ayat are:
Check it out.
The Qur’an…A Way of Life
November 23, 2005 on 9:33 pm | In Qur'an, Benefits of an Islamic Lifestyle | No CommentsMENJ has a good post with 60 rules of behavior derived from the Qur’an. Please see: The Qur’an…A Way of Life.
Inside the Muslim Mind and the Qur’an
November 16, 2005 on 9:57 pm | In Qur'an, Terrorism, Correcting Misperceptions about Islam/Muslims | 3 CommentsBelow is most of a short interview with Michael Sells, Professor of Islamic History at the University of Chicago, and author of the book, “Approaching the Qur’an” (think “Controversy in 2002 at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill”). The interview appeared in the Minneapolis-St. Paul StarTribune.
Q Some Americans would see the title of your lecture, “The Politics of the Qur’an,” as synonymous with the politics of terrorism. How do you respond?
A: One of the big problems in the American society is that people do not have a sense of what the Qur’an is. So when someone commits an act of violence and cites a verse from the Qur’an, which seems to justify violence, then it’s easy for people to make the assumption that the Qur’an is a document of violence. So one thing that needs to happen is for people to have a general sense of the sacred texts of religious traditions and to see that there is violence and peace in all of the sacred texts and that people have justified violence by quoting all of the sacred texts.
Q Is there a fundamental gap in understanding between Islam and the West?
A: There are translation gaps. Muslims approach the Qur’an primarily through hearing it in Arabic. It’s a very different experience than reading the Bible, and it makes it very difficult for people, when they pick up a Qur’an and read it, to understand the spirituality that Muslims feel and sense when they hear the Qur’an.
Q Does that translate into anything practical in terms of our understanding of the Muslim world?
A: What’s often lost are the deeper feelings of tenderness, of solidarity with other human beings, of subtlety, of the ability to have many interpretations. All of these things when they are lost lead then to a very stereotypical sense … a narrow, more rigid sense of what the tradition is.
Q There was lively controversy after the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill assigned students in 2002 to read your book, “Approaching the Qur’an.” Critics said you sanitized Islam by leaving out passages commanding violent behavior in jihad. How do you respond?
A: It’s a category mistake. If someone were presenting to Muslims aspects of the Bible that most Christians and Jews find deeply personal in their private religious lives, … you would probably present something like the Book of Genesis. … You probably would not present the Book of Joshua, in which God requires his people to exterminate all of the people of the Palestine area. … I took the part of the Qur’an that Muslims learn first, that they memorize most often, and I translated that.
The Beauty of the Qur’an
November 9, 2005 on 12:04 pm | In Qur'an, Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl | 3 CommentsQuestion: How do you explain the beauty of the Qur’an?
Answer: Saidina Ali k.w. pointed out that:
“Al-Qur’an presents to you in the way that you approach it.”
If one approaches the Qur’an with evil and ugly intentions, closed paradigms and limited understanding, he will understand the Qur’an with his limited, ugly understandings. If one approaches the Qur’an with love and mercy, the Qur’an will build upon them castles of mercy and compassion.
–Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, Interview with the Editors of “Inabah” magazine, p. 5
Comment: After reading this answer, the image I got was of the Qur’an as a mirror. The Qur’an is certainly more than just a book; likewise, our relationship with the Qur’an is not one-way, but two-way. The Qur’an not only provides us guidance generally, in the form of various rules and legislation, but also seems to provide individual guidance, in part through its ability to “read the reader.” (”There comes a moment in the reading of the Qur’an, as for example in personal study focused on understanding the meaning, whether reciting out loud or reading it silently, when readers start feeling an uncanny, sometimes frightening presence. Instead of reading the Qur’an, the reader begins feeling the Qur’an is ‘reading’ the reader! This is a wonderfully disturbing experience, by no means requiring a person to be a Muslim before it can be felt.” — Fredrick Denny, Islam, p. 88)
But everyone is not able to partake of the Qur’an’s wisdom. I have come across many people online who have demonstrated their inability to grasp all or a part of the Qur’an due to their mindset. And this metaphor, of the Qur’an as a mirror to one’s soul, strikes me as particularly apt. The mind that is clouded and opaque has no ability to see the Qur’an’s beauty. That soul, as Dr. Khaled pointed out, will have nothing more than “limited, ugly understandings.” However, if one’s mind is the least bit transparent, then the Qur’an will reflect back its beauty upon that person’s soul. Insha’allah, the soul will continue to grow and become more beautiful the more it reads the Qur’an.
Jihad versus Violence
October 31, 2005 on 6:11 pm | In Qur'an, Correcting Misperceptions about Islam/Muslims, Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, Jihad | No CommentsThe following excerpt comes from Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl’s article, “Peaceful Jihad.” Dr. Khaled is a Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law. He was recently in Singapore, and Inabah magazine, a publication of Masjid Khadijah, was given permission to publish a number of his articles. (To read the entire article, click on the Inabah button at the top of Masjid Khadijah’s website, then click on the Issue 21 icon. The article, in PDF format, is on pp. 18-20.)
I’ve chosen this particular excerpt because I think Dr. Khaled provides a very good distinction between the concepts of jihad and qital. The concept of jihad is often confused by non-Muslims with what we Muslims call qital, or fighting. Jihad and qital, as Dr. Khaled shows, are quite distinct concepts from each other and jihad, which is a positive value, should not be confused with qital.
I’ve also included two additional paragraphs to this excerpt because it helps to illustrate some of the limitations that are placed on qital that we Muslims are to follow:
“Jihad is a core principle in Islamic theology; it means to strive, to apply oneself: to struggle, and persevere. In many ways, jihad connotes a strong spiritual and material work ethic in Islam. Piety, knowledge, health, beauty, truth, and justice are not possible without jihad - without sustained and diligent hard work. Therefore, cleansing oneself from vanity and pettiness, pursuing knowledge, curing the ill, feeding the poor, and standing up for truth and justice even at great personal risk are all forms of jihad.
“The Qur’an uses the term jihad to refer to the act of striving to serve the purposes of God on this Earth, which include all the acts mentioned above. Importantly, the Qur’an does not use the word jihad to refer to warfare or fighting; such acts are referred to as qital. While the Qur’an’s call to jihad is unconditional and unrestricted, such is not the case for qital. Jihad is a good in and of itself while qital is not. Every reference in the Qur’an to qital is therefore restricted and limited by particular conditions, but exhortations to jihad, like the references to justice or truth, are absolute and unconditional. Consequently, the early Muslims were not allowed to engage in qital until God gave them specific permission to do so. The Qur’an is careful to note that Muslims were given permission to fight because they had become the victims of aggression. Furthermore, the Qur’an instructs Muslims to fight only those who fight them and not to transgress, for God does not approve of aggression.
“In addition, the Qur’an goes on to specify that if the enemy ceases hostilities and seeks peace, Muslims should seek peace as well. Failure to seek peace without just cause is considered arrogant and sinful. In fact, the Qur’an reminds Muslims not to pick fights and not to create enemies, indicating that it is a Divine blessing when one chooses to make peace. God has the power to inspire in the hearts of non-Muslims a desire for peace, and Muslims must treat such a blessing with gratitude and appreciation, not defiance and arrogance.
“In light of this Qur’anic discourse, Muslim jurists debated what would consitute a sufficient and just cause for fighting non-Muslims. Are non-Muslims fought because of their act of disbelief or only becase they pose a physical threat to Muslims? Most jurists concluded that the justification for fighting non-Muslims is directly proportional to the physical threat they pose to Muslims. In other words, if they do not threaten or seek to harm Muslims, then there is no justification for acts of belligerence or warfare. Similarly, relying on precedents set by the Prophet, classical Muslim jurists held that non-combatants - children, women, people of advanced age, monks, hermits, priests, or anyone else who does not seek to or cannot fight Muslims are inviolable and may not be targeted.”
The 114th Basmallah
September 26, 2005 on 10:33 pm | In Qur'an | 5 CommentsI’ve been meaning to write about this. A few weeks ago, after taisir class, the ustazah pointed out to Milady and I a little gem in the Qur’an, an ayah that is hidden in plain sight. I was so excited at learning about this ayat that I could hardly go to sleep that night. Anyhoo…
As Muslims, we know that the Qur’an has 114 suwar (pl. of surah) and that there are 113 basmallah, the only surah not having a basmallah being the ninth (At-Taubah, Repentance). However, my ustazah asked, did you know that there is a 114th basmallah in the Qur’an? And there is:
“It is from Solomon, and is (as follows): ‘In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful: (27:30)
I’ve been thinking about this verse since I heard about the connection (114 suwar, 114 basmallah). Obviously it could be “coincidence” that there is a 114th basmallah to make up for the one missing at the beginning of At-Taubah… But I’ve come not to believe in “coincidences” when it comes to the Qur’an. The Qur’an is far too subtle a work to be governed by mere coincidence. This to me is a sign (ayah) from Allah (swt) that shows once more the divine authorship of the Qur’an.
Alhamdulillah!
Some more comments regarding apostasy…
September 16, 2005 on 3:21 pm | In Qur'an, Correcting Misperceptions about Islam/Muslims, Shariah, Apostasy | 6 CommentsThis is more of a conversation I have had regarding the topic of apostasy. The Non-Muslim Lost Budgie appears to be the type of Christian who assumes that Muslims would convert in droves to Christianity if only they didn’t fear being executed by other Muslims for apostasy. In fact, I believe Ann’s comments (mentioned and linked at the very end of this post) are quite true.
Lost Budgie wrote: “Unfortunately, many Islamic scholars do not share your interpretation of Islamic scriptures and laws.”
And many do. Read my last post [referring to what I have posted in my last entry on this blog].
“Whether apostates are killed by countries or individuals, the killings perfectly illustrate that this interpretation of Islam is held by many of the faith.”
Many people of all faiths will have different interpretations regarding their religions. Some interpretations are held in ignorance; others are held as a result of correct study. Christians and Jews all supposedly follow the Ten Commandments, but that doesn’t mean that they obey them (particularly the sixth).
“(For a tiny sample of what can be found on the web, click here for the photos and names of ten Iranian women who were all hung together for apostasy in 1983. Many since that time, of course. This was just a busy day.)”
Personally, I don’t agree that these women were apostates; I believe they were murdered for following a different religion (their murders I condemn). If you want to argue that Baha’i’s are Muslims (and thus apostates), then you’re following a Shi’a perspective, which I don’t think many people around the world (including Sunni Muslims) would agree with.
“References? Well, let’s start with Abul Ala Mawdudi and his book “The Punishment of the Apostate according to Islamic Law”. An English translation can be found here.
“Mr. Mawdudi was, of course, a founding father of Pakistan and has been described as ‘the most widely read Muslim author of the 20th Century, contributing immensely to the contemporary resurgence of Islamic ideas, feelings and activity all over the world.’”
This is one person’s view on the topic and, as such, doesn’t carry much weight within the Islamic community. Even if Mawdudi’s work is accepted within one of the madhab, that doesn’t necessarily mean that any of the other madhab would also accept it.
“Mr. Mawdudi also provided the introduction to A. Yusuf Ali’s ‘The Holy Qur’an, Translation and Commentary’.”
Not in any of the three volumes my wife and I have of Yusuf Ali’s translation (including original version and revised). Not that, even if Mawdudi’s introduction appears in some limited edition printings of Yusuf Ali’s translation, would his work make a speck of difference.
“On the web today, you can find many Islamic websites that agree with the position that apostates should be killed. Try here or here to start.”
You do know that you can’t always trust what you read on the Internet, right?
Why are you bringing up non-scholarly works?
“So JD…. you disagree with Mr. Mawdudi and others who hold the position that both the Koran and Hadith command (ie: COMMAND, not “recommend”) the execution of Muslim apostates.”
You obviously didn’t read my earlier post or the article I linked to. The Qur’an forbids the execution of apostates. The one hadith that supposedly forms the basis for the execution of apostates is, in fact, ignored for the imposition of a death penalty for apostates. As the article I linked to pointed out, “The Shari’ah has not fixed any punishment for apostasy.” Just because other people may think differently doesn’t mean that they’re correct or that their thoughts supercede the Qur’an.
“Respectfully, I point out that the disagreement on this issue between Muslims of good faith well illustrates the problem confronting modern-moderate Muslims as they try to reconcile the foundations of Islam with contemporary living.”
You crack me up. If you think that Muslims are struggling with some sort of “reconciliation” between Islam and contemporary life, then you obviously don’t know Muslims very well. We live within the contemporary world very well, thank you very much.
In the meantime, this entire conversation about Muslim apostasy is largely moot for the most part. It rarely happens. As another Muslim on another blog recently wrote on this topic: “To be honest, this [contemporary apostasy] is not something that really comes up often. The missionaries would have you believe that this is because converts would be killed, as if masses of Muslims are yearning to be Christian, but they’re afraid. In fact, they have a very hard time converting Muslims, and when they occasionally do, it’s Muslims who are not very knowledgeable about Islam in the first place.” (Source)
Apostasy
September 15, 2005 on 12:27 pm | In Qur'an, Correcting Misperceptions about Islam/Muslims, Shariah, Apostasy | No CommentsSafiyyah’s got another comment from a non-Muslim visitor (the so-called “insta-expert,” who thinks they understand Islam after reading what are undoubtedly anti-Muslim propoganda). Anyhoo… Today’s comment was, “For instance… The Koran says that Muslims who convert to another religion must be killed. A modern-moderate Muslim has difficulty arguing against this, for to deny this is to deny the correctness of the Koran, or to admit that passages have, what, expired?”
The problem with this person’s comment, of course, is that nowhere in the Qur’an is it said that apostates are to be killed. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Allah (swt) tells us that we humans are to leave apostates alone, that not only shall Allah (swt) “punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter” (9:74), but that Allah (swt) alone will punish them.
“And leave Me (alone to deal with) those in possession of the good things of life, who (yet) deny the Truth; and bear with them for a little while. With Us are Fetters (to bind them), and a Fire (to burn them), And a Food that chokes, and a Penalty Grievous.” (73:11-3)
Muslims have no problem in arguing against the false notion that apostates must be killed. A number of Muslim scholars have argued thus:
“A number of Islamic scholars from past centuries, Ibrahim al-Naka’I, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi, Abul Walid al-Baji and Ibn Taymiyyah, have all held that apostasy is a serious sin, but not one that requires the death penalty. In modern times, Mahmud Shaltut, Sheikh of al-Azhar, and Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi have concurred.” (Source)
Holy books treated with respect in nearly all religions
June 12, 2005 on 8:17 pm | In Qur'an | 2 CommentsThese are excerpts from an article in the Arizona Daily Star (Tucson) that I think are important to read with regard to the recent controversy over the desecration of various Qur’ans at Guantanamo Bay. The comparison with the burning of a US flag is a valid one, and I’m a little surprised that this is the first time I’ve heard someone make this particular comparison. I also like how the writer (Stephanie Innes) got the comparisons from the Rabbi and Bishop to show that our (Muslim) handling of the Qur’an is similar to the way in which Jews and Roman Catholics treat the Torah and Bible, respectively.
The Quran is a book with special sensitivity to Muslims, and there are certain rules that need to be followed, Ahmed said.
“It is also about personal perception. Some people get upset if someone burns a U.S. flag - it will enrage them to no end. Others will say it’s just a piece of cloth,” said Deedra Abboud, executive director of the Muslim American Society’s Arizona office, based in Phoenix.
…
“The Quran is considered divine speech and mentions that only those purified should touch it,” said abdul Wali, whose institute educates both Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam. “It is not simply ink on paper - it is a crystallization of divine speech.”
When one of his children drops the Quran on the floor, abdul Wali says to kiss it as a way of apologizing. Muslims keep their Qurans on the highest level of bookshelves out of respect, he said.
“The Quran will bear witness for or against you on the day of judgment,” he said. “It’s not just a book.”
…
Other religions also have traditions about handling their holy books. In Judaism, the Torah scroll is stored in the center of the sanctuary in an “aron kodesh,” Hebrew for holy ark.
“You don’t just put it in a box and put it in the corner,” said Rabbi Robert Eisen of Congregation Anshei Israel, 5550 E. Fifth St., a Conservative Jewish congregation. “It also has to be dressed in an appropriate manner - a mantle over it and very often ornaments.”
If a Torah wears out, it cannot simply be thrown away, he said. It is buried either with the rabbi or with a prominent member of the congregation.
“If a Torah scroll falls on the ground, some counsel that we are to fast for 40 days as a community, or give to charity,” Eisen said.
He said any other Jewish text with God’s name in it should be kissed if it’s dropped and should never be left open. When the texts wear out, they cannot be thrown into the garbage but must be buried in a “genizah” - a burial site for sacred Jewish objects, including texts.
“I think you will find in all religious traditions a way of maintaining respect and structure within community and life,” Eisen said. “If something is going to be considered sacred and holy in and of itself, it has to be treated in a consistent way.”
Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas said the Bible holds a place of reverence in Catholicism that’s often referenced by the deacon or priest when he kisses it. The Bible is held high during the procession at the beginning of church services.
“Sacred books of any religion are to be respected, to be held as special and not to be tossed. Oftentimes even a Catholic in private prayer will read the Bible and kiss it as respect to the word of God,” Kicanas said. “Clearly, it’s the responsibility of any culture to respect the sacred books of any religion.”
Powered by WordPress with design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^