Showing posts with label Qur'an. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Qur'an. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

What Defines A Muslim? (3) C'mon, Now, Really


Look. I think it all comes down to one very simple point that I made in Part 1. If you really believe God sent down the Qur'an, do what He says to do in it.

Honestly, though? Just do what you want; what you believe to be right. I'm not going to treat you any different or any of that which comes with a medieval outlook and "you're not one of us" BS. It's you and God. But please, claiming yourself to be 'Muslim' as you directly contradict the essence of Islam itself – the Qur'an – is, I think, as much of a crime as Osama Bin Laden's twisting of the Qur'an to fulfill his own sick fantasies. After all – he had an interpretation of his own, right? An interpretation that any sane person immediately condemned. They did not cast him out of Islam – only God can do that, and no human being can judge another – they did not accuse him of 'not being a Muslim anymore', but they condemned his interpretation. His action.

That is what I hope we can do here. Never condemn the person – never treat them but anything with the utmost respect, love, kindness. The way you want to be treated. But, for God's sake, do not condone their actions. Condemning a person and what they do are two very different things and that's the reason why I'm not a sick maniac whom you would be justified to call a self-righteous isolationist. Condemning PEOPLE, casting myself as God, determining who's right and who's wrong (and I hope I've made it quite clear) is not what I'm talking about.

I'm just saying, look within yourself and ask yourself if you can really justify what you're doing. I hope I've not offended anyone and that I've been able to get my message across clearly.

(Incidentally, I also regard with a jaundiced eye those who say my point of view is 'idealistic' and 'not caught up with the times'. So refusing a glass of wine and that flirty hunk is that difficult? Making time for God in your day is impossible? Come on. We have countless examples of faithful, practicing Muslims who manage to do it in spite of the barrage of urges to do otherwise! Why give ourselves the easy way out?)

In all, God gave us these instructions for a reason. C'mon, people. Let's follow them.

Saturday, June 4, 2011

What Defines A Muslim? (2) The Interpretation Question


Okay all, here's part 2 of this series: my bound-to-come-short attempt at the definition of a Muslim. It was brought on by discussions on Twitter as well as, believe it or not, walking through a Saudi mall!

One thing that must be stressed here is that this is NOT meant to represent that I'm walking around with a checklist of Criteria To Be Met if someone Claims To Be Muslim - "or else". I'm just kind of annoyed at the extent the 'Muslim by name' phenomenon has reached. Here in the Arab world specifically, Saudi Arabia especially, it's getting kind of ridiculous. I once was speaking to a girl in my class; she mentioned that she didn't cover her hair when she traveled. I asked her, "Do you really believe that you should?" She said "Sure!" – and, when asked further about why she didn't back up her beliefs with actions, simply shrugged.

So is this a case of words not matching up with actions? Beliefs not translated into real, live, factual stuff? I think it is. I think it's an attitude of carelessness, a kind of laissez-faire picked up from the general attitude about religion nowadays. "It's what in your heart that counts." Of course it is – but what is in your heart and words and intentions are NOTHING without deeds to back them up, as well as vice-versa. That's just common sense. Why else is "those who believe" always, always directly followed by "and do good deeds" in the Qur'an?

So I really detest this attitude of "I know what I'm going to do but I'm too lazy to do it"… which is the first category of non-practicing Muslims. Frankly, if the girl had told me "no, I actually don't believe I should cover my hair" because she had researched the actual subject and had come to the conclusion (as many have) that covering one's hair is indeed unnecessary, I would've respected her far more.

This brings us to the second category: Muslims who claim that their interpretation of the sacred texts has enabled them to follow Islam as they see fit. Naturally and as a matter of course there are different understandings of how Islam ought to be practiced. As mentioned in Part 1, that's the beauty of it, and re-interpretation MUST be done if a true Islamic Reformation is to be accomplished. It's part of Islam and refuting the, unfortunately, all-too-often outdated, misogynistic, patriarchal, *insert synonym of BAD of your choice here* system and edicts Muslims have been following blindly for centuries because someone told them the door of interpretation was closed and that's it. I'm of the opinion that the decay and downfall of the Muslim world was in part caused by that cursed idea. It needs to be rectified, immediately – and responsibly. Let's not get carried away here.

So excuse me if I regard with a jaundiced eye the claims of people who drink, who don't pray, who have sex without being married. It's just, how exactly do you 'interpret' (impolitely: 'twist around') direct orders? Nothing ambiguous, just "do" and "don't do"?

Don't drink alcohol.

Direct punishment for those who have sex outside of marriage.

PRAY, for God's sake!

Do I really need to get verses in the Qur'an to back this up? Really, guys? (As always, I'd love to hear if you've got an interpretation that says it's OK for any of the above.)

(continued in Part 3 - I'd get sued for length otherwise.)

Friday, December 3, 2010

Islam and Violence (1): The Verses


Greetings!


Not that I expect anyone to have been actually paying attention, but if anyone was, I owe them an apology for the unholy delay that plagued this post.

Here at last are some of the violent-seeming verses in the Qur'an, and my replies to those who see them as "incriminating" for the religion of Islam in any way. It also is a refutation of the empty claims of those "Muslim" people who claim that these verses do, in fact, urge them to MAKE WAR UPON THE UNBELIEVERS, however that may be.

(Which is why I disagree with the empty "Islam's a religion of peace" refrain. Anything can be twisted to unscruplous advantages, and these verses are the ones that are always pointed to in the New "Experts" on Islam's finger-pointings.)

Enough intro. Here we go.


THE VERSES:


(A) Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate. (Sura 9:73)"

"The true believers fight for the cause of God. But the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan. (Sura 4:76) "

"When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads...(Sura 47:4)"

These three I've lumped together because the same defense can be used to each. The key words are "Prophet", "the infidels fight", and "in battlefield". "Prophet" makes it clear that this is in historical context, talking directly to Muhammad, the second: "infidels fight" makes it clear that this is not one-sided agression, and the third: "in the battlefield", makes it obvious that we are in a state of war the moment.

Essentially it's clear that the "infidels" are not being fought just for the sake of them being "infidels". People should read up more on the history of Islam and just why all those wars took place. Either way, war is ugly - but it's not an Islamic phenomenon and the verses do not speak of initiated aggression by one side. Therefore these verses cannot be used to signify that Islam mandates mindless violence.

(B) "Slay them wherever you find them. (Sura 2:190)"

"Arrest them, besiege them. And lie in ambush everywhere for them. (Sura 9:5)

"But he forbids you to make friends with those who have fought against you on account of your religion and driven you from your homes or abetted others to do so. Those that make friends with them are wrongdoers. (Sura 60:9)"

Now, the problem with these three are one and the same: a laughable elimination of the proper context. Let's just get these verses as they are supposed to be read and perhaps then they will make sense.

2: 190. And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.

191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out.

So here we have self-defense. "Those who fight you".

9:5 - Sura 9 deserves an explanation. From the very beginning of the chapter we are told that treaties with the polytheists are to be disbanded. Why? A reading of verses 1-15, approximately, will tell us that it is especially because the polytheists have not respected the treaties they themselves have made. Therefore the Prophet is under no further obligation to honor these treaties that have already been betrayed by the polytheists. (You can find Sura 9 here: http://www.dar-us-salam.com/TheNobleQuran/index.html)

60:9: (on unbelievers) God forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are wrong-doers.

This is the most obvious one, and to deal with it one must only read the verse immediately preceding it.

60:8 - Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity.

With this understanding, we continue:

60:9 - It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that God forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are wrong-doers.

:)

(C) Muhammad is God's Apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (Sura 48:29)

This is Robert Spencer's translation (for those who are so fortunate as to never have heard of Robert Spencer, he is a most notorious and shameless New 'Expert' on Islam, and has written several books maligning Islam I do not deign to mention here, for fear it will lead to him gaining just a little bit of profit from his lies.)

I think he used the N.J.Dawood one. With this, I need only point out that the translation is not correct. The correct translation of the term "shadeed" is not "ruthless" but rather "firm" or "tough". And, uh, given the circumstances, somehow I feel that firm treatment with the unbelievers was justfied...

(D) He that leaves his dwelling to fight for God and his apostle and is then overtaken by death, shall be rewarded by God. (Sura 4:100)

People point to this to say it encourages fighting and violence; however, would one refuse a Christian martyr God's reward? Not mention all the reasons I've mentioned already on what exactly the circumstances of the fighting were. (I should elaborate on this in a future blog post. Just what WERE the circumstances of the Muslims and the nonbelievers at that time?)

So there we have it. Several verses that are always pointed to when "proving" that ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF VIOLENCE!!

And my reply to say that: in fact, they do not. :)