Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
It is through the disobedience of the Shaytan that sin came into the world and he was cast out of the Garden, then he tempted Adam (PBUH)and MAN now sinned. The Qura'n teaches us that God forgave Adam (PBUH) as he is the Most Merciful, Most Forgiving, so we don't bear the sin of Adam (PBUH) and need no "blood sacrifice" for our sins. Jesus (PBUH) said follow the Commandments and you will attain Heaven.Simple. In the Qur'an, we are told that mankind were created to inhabit the earth. When Adam and Eve were first created, they were allowed to abide in the garden. However, soon after they ate from the tree and God sent them down to earth. Once Adam realized his error he was remorseful and repentant, however, he was the first man. He did not know how to repent or how to seek forgiveness. So, God Almighty provided him with a revelation teaching him how to ask for God's forgiveness. Adam did so and God accepted Adam's repentance. God did not mandate gruesome and torturous blood sacrifices of the sinless or anything else. He simply forgave Adam's sin. We can read this story in the Qur'an:
"And We said: O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the Paradise, and eat from it freely with pleasure and delight wherever you will, but do not approach this tree or you both will be of the wrongdoers. But Satan made them slip therefrom (the Paradise), such that he expelled them from that in which they were. And we said: Decend, all, with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be a dwelling place for you and an enjoyment until a time. Then Adam received from his Lord words (of revelation), and He pardoned him. Verily! He is the Forgiving, the Merciful. We said: Decend, all of you, from hence; but whenever there comes to you a guidance from Me, then whosoever follows My guidance, there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. But they who disbelieve and deny our revelations, such are the dwellers of the Fire. They shall abide therein forever" The noble Qur'an, Al-Baqarah(2):35-39
Even you own Book teaches that God does not "hold a grudge". "Who [is] a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth [in] mercy." Micah 7:18
More on the "cruci-fiction"
CRUCIFIXION & RESURRECTION OF THE CHRIST
If the righteous Jesus - the Messiah, who refused to be called "good" by his disciples and taught them "No one is good expect God alone" (Mk. 10:18) was to visit us and listen to the leading evangelical missionaries of our era preaching the “Christianity”, what would surprise him the most? Probably he would be astonished to see that a religion bearing his personal epithet having its primary roots not in his teachings but in the accounts of his crucifixion and resurrection that are recorded in the various revised versions of the New Testament.
According to the Bible (Book of Acts 2:24 and John 17:4), the act of resurrection was not performed by Jesus himself. It was done by the ever-living God, whom Jesus served and glorified during his ministry. However, Paul postulated in the under mentioned verse that this particular act of resurrection was the sole base of "Christian faith": And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 1 Corin. 15:17-18 (All quotations are from K.J.V.)
Here is an important question from another important perspective: are these biblical records of the crucifixion and the resurrection that are written by apostles, self-complementing or self-contradicting?
Please read below and see if you can reconcile the historical records.
QUERY NO. 1: What was the time in the day, when Christ was nailed to the cross? a) Apostle Mark records; “And it was the 3rd hour (i.e. about 9 a.m.), and they crucified Him”. (15:25) Briefly, Jesus the Christ was crucified in the early forenoon.
b) Apostle John records; “…and about the 6th hour (i.e. about noon): and he (Pilate) said unto the Jews, Behold your King!” (19:14).
The story continues giving details of the legal proceedings that followed. Finally, the verdict for crucifixion was delivered and the Christ was taken to the place of his crucifixion and “they crucified him” (19:18). Briefly, Jesus the Christ was crucified sometime in the late afternoon.
Since the crucifixion happened ONCE, which record is to be considered as not trustworthy?
A Christian Critic's Remark: Under the title "answering-Islam", sub-title Rebuttals to Akbarally Meherally, Section A, Part 3, a Christian critic writes: The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) used a different method to number the hours of day than John. Matthew, Mark, and Luke used the traditional Hebrew system, in which the hours of the day were numbered from sunrise (approximately 6:00 AM), which places the crucifixion at about 9:00 AM, or the third hour by this system. John, did not employ the Hebrew system, he used the Roman civil day. The Roman system defined a day from midnight to midnight, as we do today. Pliny the Elder (in Natural History 2.77) and Macrobius (Saturnalia 1.3) give us historical confirmation of this fact. Therefore, using the Roman system which was used by John, the trial of Jesus ended around the sixth hour (6:00 AM), which was the first hour of the Hebrew system used by Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
My Response: 1. Apostle John was not a Roman citizen. Apostle John was a Jew like the rest of the apostles. The Gospel John had written was of Jesus, who too was a Jew by birth. The followers for whom the text was written were mostly Jews or following the Hebrew system. The critic has given no logical, satisfactory answer as to why John had discarded the prevalent Hebrew system and adopted the Roman system.
2. The critic has also not given an explanation as to why would Pilate, a Roman governor, give up his sleep and convene his court in the dark of night at about 4 or 5 a.m. and deliver his verdict by 6 a.m., when most of his citizens were yet in their beds? Did the Roman courts used to meet at 4 or 5 a.m.?
3. The critic's attempt to salvage the "self-contradictory" texts, within the four Gospels, falls flat and all the doors for further arguments are closed when the texts in the New Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible read; "about noon" and in the Phillips Modern English Bible reads; "toward midday". In the marginal notes of the New American Standard Bible it reads: "I.e. noon" for "the sixth hour" (John 19:14). I suggest the critic should rather spend his energy and time convincing the editors of the Bible to adopt his unique theory of Hebrew and Roman timings, before trying to convince the surfers.
QUERY NO. 2: What was the day when Christ was crucified? a) The first three Gospels record that Christ was alive on the “day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed (sacrificed).” (Lk. 22:7). That evening Christ ate with his disciples the Passover Seder (a Jewish ceremonial dinner or supper held on the first night of Passover to commemorate the Exodus.) (Lk. 22:14). Thereafter, Christ spent the night on the Mount of Olives, praying (Lk. 22:40). On the next day Christ was brought before Pilate, tried and crucified. (Lk. Chapter 23). ( also see Mt. 26:20-30; Mk. 14:17-25; Lk. 22:14-23)
Briefly, Christ was crucified the day following the Passover Seder. b) Apostle John records; when Christ was lead from Caiaphas unto the Pilate’s headquarters, the Jews did not enter the Hall of Judgment “lest they should be defiled” to "eat the Passover" (18:28). “And it was the preparation of the Passover” (19:14) when the verdict for the crucifixion was delivered by Pilate and Christ was taken to the place of his Crucifixion and “they crucified him.” (19:18).
Briefly, Christ was crucified on the day of the Passover Seder. Since the Crucifixion happened ONCE, which record is to be considered as not trustworthy?
QUERY NO. 3: Where did the risen (raised up) Christ first meet his disciples in a group? a) Apostle Luke records; the risen Christ met for the first time his eleven disciples in Jerusalem. He talked to them and also ate "a piece of a broiled fish and of an honeycomb". (24:33-43). There is no reference of their meeting in Galilee. b) Apostle Matthew records; the risen Christ himself spoke to Mary and her friend and said; "Be not afraid, go tell my brethren (disciples) that they go into Galilee (nearly 100 miles north of Jerusalem), and there shall they see me." (28:10). The "eleven disciples went away into Galilee" and "they saw him". (28:16-17). There is no reference of their meeting in Jerusalem.
QUERY NO. 4: How many disciples were present when the risen Christ saw his disciples in a group for the first time? a) Matthew, Mark and Luke record; eleven. (Judas was not present). b) John records; ten. (Judas & Thomas were not present). c) Paul records; twelve (see 1 Corinthians 15:5). Note: A theological statement can be interpreted with a kind of play or leeway for having more than one interpretation. What scope does a recorded historical event, specifying the specific date and time of a singular occurrence has for the kind of variations that we have just observed?
Paul who made the act of resurrection the sole base of "Christian faith" also postulated: ... a man is not justified by the works of law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ… by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal. 2:16
This is a serious statement. What if the risen Christ was to question his followers; Did I really give Paul the authority to make the act of resurrection the base of "faith" and/or to abrogate my original teachings and replace them with his own?
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Tman, You're just digging your way deeper into hell with those blasphemous talking. Go study the Bible and put down the demonic book that the demon give to Muhammed, I did a study on the way the Arch Angel Gabriel appeared to different people and trust a nuh Gabriel appear to Muhammed, Muhammed was decieved by the master of deception (satan) mi say dat and mi nah tek back nuh talk.
First: Had the spirit been Gabriel, he would have calmed Muhammad and relieved his fear. But the spirit left him in extreme distress. Gabriel appeared to many people before his alleged visit to Muhammad and each time the first thing he did was to allay that person's fear. Gabriel appeared to the prophet Daniel. Daniel was afraid but Gabriel touched him, he did not squeeze him, he only touched him, The spirit that squeesed Muhammed almost killed him according to Muhammed, he even wanted to commit suicide. One of satan's biggest weapon is fear.
II Timothy 1:7 God has not given me a spirit of fear, but of power and love and a calm, well balanced mind.
Isaiah 12:2 I am not afraid because God is my salvation and I trust Him.
1 John 4:18 I am not tormented because all fear is cast out in God's perfect love.
Tman, a spirit that is from God does not operate with fear and intimidation, that's just not Godly possible.
You dont prove nothing, all you do is quote. You are just like all the product of the slave masters brain wash thinking and can not think for your self, then when you can not prove anything you resort to slander The Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, i call it the way i see it people like you are are ignorant, a dunce.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
Noel: Oh ye Pharasee, if the satan reveal the Qur'an then he is preaching against himself, and and Jesus (PBUH) said a nation divided against itself cannot stand. Jesus (PBUH) himself was in fear when he asked God to take the cup "the cross" for him. Again you return to slander and insult when you cant answer to the logic. Do the maths : Friday evening to Sunday morning is not three days and that is what you hang your whole doctrine and wish for salvation on.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Qur'an Incoherence and Contradiction
Is Satan an Angel or a Jinn? Analyzing the Quran’s Confusing Statements
Sam Shamoun
The Quran, in many citations, portrays Satan or Iblis as an angel:
And (remember) when We said to the angels: "Prostrate yourselves before Adam." And they prostrated except Iblis (Satan), he refused and was proud and was one of the disbelievers (disobedient to Allah). S. 2:34
And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "I am going to create a man (Adam) from sounding clay of altered black smooth mud. So, when I have fashioned him completely and breathed into him (Adam) the soul which I created for him, then fall (you) down prostrating yourselves unto him." So, the angels prostrated themselves, all of them together. Except Iblis (Satan), - he refused to be among the prostrators. S. 15:28-31
And (remember) when We said to the angels: "Prostrate yourselves to Adam." They prostrated (all) except Iblis (Satan), who refused. S. 20:116
(Remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Truly, I am going to create man from clay". So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him (his) soul created by Me, then you fall down prostrate to him." So the angels prostrated themselves, all of them: Except Iblis (Satan) he was proud and was one of the disbelievers. S. 38:71-74
The natural reading of the above texts is to see Satan as an angel who refused to obey Allah’s order to worship Adam. The following passage brings out this point even more clearly:
And surely, We created you (your father Adam) and then gave you shape (the noble shape of a human being), then We told the angels, "Prostrate to Adam", and they prostrated, except Iblis (Satan), he refused to be of those who prostrate. (Allah) said: "What prevented you (O Iblis) that you did not prostrate, when I commanded you?" Iblis said: "I am better than him (Adam), You created me from fire, and him You created from clay." S. 7:11-12
Allah asks Iblis why he didn’t obey his instruction to the angels to prostrate to Adam, which presupposes that he was one of the angels. The text does not say that Allah commanded some other group along with the angels to worship Adam, and therefore makes no sense for Allah to hold Iblis accountable for not obeying a command that was given to them if he wasn’t an angel.
Yet the Quran introduces a discrepancy by identifying Iblis as a jinn:
And (remember) when We said to the angels; "Prostrate to Adam." So they prostrated except Iblis (Satan). He was one of the jinns; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord. Will you then take him (Iblis) and his offspring as protectors and helpers rather than Me while they are enemies to you? What an evil is the exchange for the Zalimun (polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc). S. 18:50
Thus, this either means that:
Satan is an angel and therefore not a jinn. Or he is a jinn and therefore not an angel, which makes Allah unjust for blaming him for not obeying a command given to the angels and not to the jinn. Or the jinn are angels which introduces another contradiction as we will demonstrate shortly. Aware of the foregoing dilemma Muslims have come up with some convenient and/or intriguing explanations. For instance, one Muslim translator distorted the text of S. 18:50 in order to make it say that Iblis became a jinn, not that he was a jinn:
We said to the angels, "Fall prostrate before Adam." They fell prostrate, except Satan. He became a jinn, for he disobeyed the order of His Lord. Will you choose him and his descendants as lords instead of Me, even though they are your enemies? What a miserable substitute! Rashad Khalifa
Khalifa’s rendering presupposes that Iblis was an angel before becoming a jinn, an understanding which, as we stated above, poses additional problems which we will see a little later. Khalifa’s followers provide the reasons why he translated the text in this manner:
The Arabic in verse 18:50 could be translated as he was a jinn or it could be translated as he became a jinn. The following translation of the Arabic verse 18:50 stating that Satan became a jinn, however, is the correct understanding for reasons stated below… It can be understood that Satan became disobedient and therefore no longer an angel through looking at other verses as well as this one rather than coming to a conclusion using only this verse. We should not take the scripture partially… First, God spoke specifically to the angels, not the angels and the jinns… Second, God issued the command to fall prostrate to the angels; and the angels fell prostrate, all of them, except Satan. Some Islamic "scholars" argue about the use of the Arabic word "illah" (except), but it is just a distraction from the fact that God is clearly speaking to and giving the command to angels… Third, There is no mistaking that Satan has fallen, God tells us Satan is in his act of rebellion, which is followed by his banishment… Lastly, the Islamic "scholars" claim that angels are made of light, but nowhere in the Quran does it say what angels are made of. Since there are no inconsistencies or contradictions in the Quran and it is perfect (16:103,18:2, 26:195), complete (6:115, 41:3), and fully detailed (6:114, 7:52, 10:37), we can conclude that the confusion is caused by the contradicting Hadith. (Source)
Still others claim that jinn are actually a class of angels created to guard paradise. Renowned Sunni exegete and historian al-Tabari wrote:
According to al-Qasim b. al-Hasan- al-Husayn b. Dawud- Hajjaj- Ibn Jurayj- Ibn `Abbas: Iblis was one of the most noblest angels and belonged to the most honored tribe among them. He was a keeper of Paradise. He had authority to rule over the lower heaven as well as earth.
According to al-Qasim- al-Husayn- Hajjaj- Ibn Jurayj- Salih, the mawla of al-Taw'amah and Sharik b. Abir Namir, either one or both of them- Ibn `Abbas: There was an angelic tribe of jinn, and Iblis belonged to it. He governed all in between the heaven and the earth.
According to Musa b. Harun al-Hamdani- `Amr b. Hammad- Asbat- al-Suddi- Abu Malik and Abu Salih- Ibn `Abbas. Also (al-Suddi)- Murrah al-Hamdani- Ibn Mas'ud and some (other) companions of the Prophet: Iblis was ruler over the lower heaven. He belonged to a tribe of angels called jinn. They were called jinn because they were keepers of Paradise (al-jannah). In addition to being ruler, Iblis was a keeper (of Paradise).
According to `Abdan al-Marwazi- al-Husayn b. al-Faraj- Dahhak b. Muzahim, commenting on God's word: "They prostrated themselves, except Iblis. He was one of the jinn": Ibn `Abbas used to say: Iblis was one of the noblest angels and belonged to their most honored tribe. He was a keeper of Paradise, and his was the rule over the lower heaven as well as the earth.
According to Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Abu al-Azhar al-Mubarak b. Mujahid- Sharik b. `Abdallah b. Abi Namir- Salih, the mawla of al-Taw'amah- Ibn `Abbas: There is an angelic tribe called jinn. Iblis belonged to them. He used to rule all in between heaven and earth. Then he became disobedient, and God therefore transformed him into a stoned Satan.
According to al-Qasim- al-Husayn- Hajjaj- Ibn Jurayj, commenting on: "And whoever among them says: I am a god besides Him": Whichever angel says: "I am a god besides Him" calls to worship of himself, and only Iblis said that. Thus, this verse was revealed with reference to Iblis. (The History of al-Tabari: General Introduction and From the Creation to the Flood, translated by Franz Rosenthal [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1989], Volume 1, pp. 250-251; bold emphasis ours)
One of the events that took place during the rule of the enemy of God while he was (still) obedient to God is what was mentioned to us on the authority of Ibn `Abbas in a report told us by Abu Kurayb- `Uthman b. Sa'id- Bishr b. `Umarah- Abu Rawq- al-Dahhak- Ibn `Abbas: Iblis belonged to a tribal group of angels called jinn. Among the angels it was they who were created from the fire of simoom. He continued. His name was al-Harith. He continued. He was one of the keepers of Paradise. He continued. All the angels except this tribal group were created from light. He continued. The jinn mentioned in the Qur'an were created "from a bright flame (marij) of fire"- (marij being) a tongue of fire blazing on its side(s and top). He continued. And He created man from clay. The first to dwell on earth were the jinn. They caused corruption on it and shed blood and killed each other. He continued. God sent Iblis to them with an army of angels. They were that tribal group called jinn. Iblis and those with him caused a bloodbath among them and eventually banished them to the islands in the oceans and the mountainsides. His success went to his head, and he said: I have done something nobody has ever done before. He continued. God was aware of how Iblis felt, but the angels who were with him were not. (Ibid., pp. 252-253; bold emphasis ours)
Ibn Humayd gave us about the same account again, reporting from Salamah- Ibn Ishaq- Khallad b. `Ata'- Tawus or Abu al-Hajjaj Mujahid- Ibn `Abbas, and others. However, he said: (Iblis) was an angel named Azazil. He was one of the dwellers and cultivators on earth. The dwellers on earth from among the angel used to be called jinn." (Ibid., p. 254; bold emphasis ours)
This interpretation would imply that Iblis did not become a jinn but already was one, and being one meant that he was also an angelic being.
The late Muhammad Asad agreed with this view, that jinn are angels, since he stated in his footnote to S. 18:50:
53 Denoting, in this instance, the angels (see Appendix III). (Source)
And then wrote in an appendix that:
IN ORDER to grasp the purport of the term jinn as used in the Qur’an, we must dissociate our minds from the meaning given to it in Arabian folklore, where it early came to denote all the manner of "demons" in the most popular sense of the word. This folkloristic image has somewhat obscured the original connotation of the term and its highly significant – almost self-explanatory – verbal derivation. The root-verb janna, "he [or "it"] concealed" or "covered with darkness": cf. 6 : 76, which speaks of Abraham "when the night overshadowed him with its darkness (janna ‘alayhi)". Since this verb is also used in the intransitive sense ("he [or "it"] was [or "became"] concealed," resp. "covered with darkness"), all classical philologists point out that al-jinn signifies "intense [or "confusing"] darkness" and, in a more general sense, "that which is concealed from [man’s] senses", i.e., things, beings or forces which cannot normally be perceived by man but have, nevertheless, an objective reality, whether concrete or abstract, of their own.
In the usage of the Qur’an, which is certainly different from the usage of primitive folklore, the term jinn has several distinct meanings. The most commonly encountered is that of the spiritual forces or beings which, precisely because they have no corporeal existence, are beyond the perceptions of our corporeal senses: a connotation which includes "satans" and "satanic forces" (shayatin – see note 16 on 15 : 17) as well as "angels" and "angelic forces", since all of them are "concealed from our senses" (Jawhari, Raghib). In order to make it quite evident that these invisible manifestations are not of a corporeal nature, the Qur’an states parabolically that the jinn were created out of "the fire of scorching winds" (nar as-samum, in 15 : 27) or out of "a confusing flame of fire" (marij min nar, in 55 :15) or simply "out of fire" (7 : 12 and 38 : 76, in these last two instances referring to the Fallen Angel, Iblis). Parallel with this, we have authentic ahadith to the effect that the Prophet spoke of the angels as having been "created out of light" (khuliqat min nur: Muslim, on the authority of ‘A’ishah) – light and fire being akin, and likely to manifest themselves within and through one another (cf. note 7 on verse 8 of surah 27). (The Message of the Quran translated and explained by Muhammad Asad [The Book Foundation, England 2003], Appendix III: On the Term and Concept of Jinn, p. 1135)
But this position contradicts specific Quranic statements that expressly deny that angels can ever disobey:
And to Allah prostate all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, of the live moving creatures and the angels, and they are not proud [i.e. they worship their Lord (Allah) with humility]. They fear their Lord above them, and they do what they are commanded. S. 16:49-50
To Him belongs whosoever is in the heavens and on earth. And those who are near Him (i.e. the angels) are not too proud to worship Him, nor are they weary (of His worship). They (i.e. the angels) glorify His Praises night and day, (and) they never slacken (to do so). S. 21:19-20
O you who believe! Ward off from yourselves and your families a Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones, over which are (appointed) angels stern (and) severe, who disobey not, (from executing) the Commands they receive from Allah, but do that which they are commanded. S. 66:6
Thus, if Iblis is an angel who disobeyed then the Quran is wrong for claiming that angels always obey their Lord! In fact, Iblis is not the only angel who sinned against God since there are many among the jinn that have done and continue to do so and who will end up in hell:
And on the Day when He will gather them (all) together (and say): "O you assembly of jinns! Many did you mislead of men," and their Auliya' (friends and helpers, etc.) amongst men will say: "Our Lord! We benefited one from the other, but now we have reached our appointed term which You did appoint for us." He will say: "The Fire be your dwelling place, you will dwell therein forever, except as Allah may will. Certainly your Lord is AllWise, AllKnowing." And thus We do make the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers, etc.) Auliya' (supporters and helpers) one to another (in committing crimes etc.), because of that which they used to earn. O you assembly of jinns and mankind! "Did not there come to you Messengers from amongst you, reciting unto you My Verses and warning you of the meeting of this Day of yours?" They will say: "We bear witness against ourselves." It was the life of this world that deceived them. And they will bear witness against themselves that they were disbelievers. S. 6:128-130
And surely, We have created many of the jinns and mankind for Hell. They have hearts wherewith they understand not, they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not (the truth). They are like cattle, nay even more astray; those! They are the heedless ones. S. 7:179
So on that Day no question will be asked of man or jinn as to his sin, (because they have already been known from their faces either white or black). S. 55:39
But many, if not most, Muslims deny that jinn are angels on the grounds that they are created from different elements. For instance, the Quran asserts that jinn were created from fire:
And the jinn did We create aforetime of essential fire. S. 15:27
And the jinn did He create of smokeless fire. S. 55:15
Whereas angels were created from light according to certain Islamic narrations. Yet, as our quotes from al-Tabari and Muhammad Asad showed, this doesn’t conclusively prove that angels and jinn are different since it is quite reasonable to assume that the jinn were a specific group of angels that were formed from fire as opposed to the other ones who were created from light. Besides, the Quran is silent on the origin of angels, whether they were made from light or not.
But, to be fair, there is also nothing in the Quran which expressly says that jinn are angels. Whatever the case, a Muslim is still left with problems in trying to reconcile what the Quran says, i.e. how can Satan disobey if he is an angel or if he is not an angel then why was he blamed for not obeying a command given only to angels?
Another attempt of explaining away the discrepancy is to appeal to the rules of Arabic grammar, which is what this next Muslim tries to do:
2. Arabic Rule Of Tagleeb
The English translation of the first part of the verse ‘We said to the angels bow down to Adam: they bowed down except Iblis’, gives us the impression that Iblis was an angel. The Qur’an was revealed in Arabic. In Arabic grammar there is a rule known as Tagleeb, according to which, if the majority is addressed, even the minority is included. If for example, I address a class containing 100 students of whom 99 are boys and one is a girl, and if I say in Arabic that the boys should stand up, it includes the girl as well. I need not mention her seperately.
Similarly in the Qur’an, when Allah addressed the angels, even Iblis was present, but it is not required that he be mentioned separately. Therefore according to that sentence Iblis may be an angel or may not be an angel, but we come to know from Surah Al Kahf chapter 18 verse 50 that Iblis was a Jinn. No where does the Qur’an say Iblis was an angel. Therefore there is no contradiction in the Qur’an. (Dr. Zakir Naik, Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims who have some knowledge of Islam; source)
To show why this ad hoc explanation is rather forced and very weak, let us take his same analogy and change it a bit. If for example, I address the same class containing 100 students of whom 99 are boys and one is a girl, and it so happens that there are parents also present with their children, and I say in Arabic that all the boys should stand up and yet none of the parents stand, I cannot legitimately hold them liable since I wasn't addressing them directly. Let us also assume that at this class, both the principal and the vice-principal were present and didn't stand up after having told the boys to rise from their seats. Could I legitimately hold them accountable for failing to comply with my orders? Of course not, since they do not fall under the category of boys, nor do they come under the category of classmates. If I wanted both the parents and school officials to stand up I would need to mention them specifically.
It is obvious that the girl in Naik's analogy falls under the same general category of classmates and children, so a reference to boys can include her since the term boys wouldn't be gender specific in this case. (But even that would have to be gleaned from the context in which the word is being used since you may have a class which is made up of entirely boys). The mention of boys in this context would be a general statement referring to a group consisting of young children and schoolmates. The term would therefore include all the persons which would fall under that category, irrespective of gender.
Hence, the only way Naik’s example could serve as a valid analogy is if we were to take for granted that Iblis belongs to the same category of angels. But arguing this way leaves us with the problem of Iblis disobeying Allah when the Quran says that angels are never disobedient.
Also, there are situations where only part of the class is supposed to stand up. Just imagine there are 30 boys and ten girls in a class. The teacher says that all the boys should stand up. Does he mean all the pupils then? Or could it be that he meant really only the boys and not the girls? E.g. because the boys should then leave the room to attend auto mechanic class to learn how to repair cars while the girls remain in the room for learning knitting, or something of that nature. Thus, it isn’t the rule, really, but the context that determines the meaning.
Now had the Quran simply said that Allah commanded the heavenly beings, or the inhabitants of heaven to worship Adam then that would have been a different story. One could argue that the reference to heavenly inhabitants would most likely include Iblis, presuming of course that he originally was a heavenly creature.
To help further drive this point home here is another illustration: Suppose in heaven there had been angels, men and animals present when Allah chose to single out one man, Adam, for special honor and blessing. Suppose Allah had commanded that all the angels should bow down before Adam, which they do, but none of the humans or animals do so. Could Allah blame them for failing to bow before Adam despite the fact that he never specifically singled any of these other groups out? The obvious answer is, of course not.
As it stands, Naik's argument is pretty weak and quite unconvincing. Dr. Naik is simply committing the fallacy of false analogy at this point.
The foregoing makes it abundantly clear that the Quran contains major discrepancies and contradictions which are not easily harmonized. In light of this, we can take the Quran’s claim of being free of any errors (S. 4:82) and change it to say:
Do they not then consider the Qur'an carefully? Had it been from Allah, they would surely have not found therein so many contradictions.
All citations taken from the Hilali-Khan version of the Quran.
Noel you are so ignorant and dont even realize it, you speak of wich you lack understanding, instead of asking you want to slander and defame. Neither Satan or Iblis are spook, you are dealing with the Quran with the slave mentality thinking, that satan is a spook and lives in the middle of the earth and has horns and a fork, i am going to prove on the forum how dum you realy are using the very bible you claim to know
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
Dr Naik give you the explanation, wheather you think it is weak or not, that is your problem. Of the over 6,000 verses in the Qur'an this is the best you could do? Then to show how your reasoning is weak you say this ONE verse proves the Qur'an contains major discrepancies and conrtadiction. One out of 6000 is not major. You seem to have a problem with maths. Dont deny your major creed is that Jesus (PBUH) would die and rise after three days and three nights,just because they dont add up. Will quote chapter and verse later, insh'Allah.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
According to Mohammed, Islam came into existence when Allah dictated the Qur'an, word for word, through the angel Gabriel, to Mohammed. If the Qur'an was dictated by an angel, it was not dictated by the angel Gabriel, it was dictated by the fallen angel Lucifer, who is also known as Satan, or the devil.
2 Corinthians 11:14-15 (NIV) And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
Islamic tradition states that Mohammed initially thought that he was demon possessed, and contemplated suicide.
Islamic scholars including, Ibn Ishaq, actually acknowledge that Satan spoke through Mohammed in the Qur'an, verses 17:73-75, and verses 22:52-53. These passages are known as the Satanic verses. After Salman Rushdie wrote concerning these Satanic Verses of the Qur'an, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini posted a one-million dollar reward for the murder of Salman Rushdie.
"The author of the Satanic Verses book [Salman Rushdie], which is against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran, and all those involved in its publication who were aware of its content, are sentenced to death. I ask all Moslems to execute them wherever they find them." - Ayatolla Ruholla Khomeini 1900-1989
Satan and the Ayatollah Khomeini, obviously knew that Salman Rushdie's book was a threat to Islam, and so the Ayatollah responded exactly in accordance with the murderous policies of the devil. The Ayatollah's offer of a reward for murder, has never been rescinded by any subsequent leader of Islam.
"The essence of his (Mohammad's) doctrine was violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature" - John Quincy Adams 1767-1848
The devil is not the Great Creator, and the devil is not creative. When the devil decided to establish another damning religion, the devil knew that he did not have the ability to create anything. The devil knows that as much as he would like to be God, he is not God. The devil again attempted to be like God. The devil established a damning religion that was as close to Judeo-Christianity as the devil could make it, but substituted the devil who is Allah, for God. Because the devil is a deceiver, the devil knew that the more that his counterfeit religion looked like genuine worship of God, the more damning his counterfeit religion would be.
Matthew 24:24 (NIV) "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible."
The devil is a liar, thief, murderer, and destroyer:
John 10:10 (NIV) "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full."
The devil stole the writings of Judeo-Christianity, claimed the human lineage of Judeo-Christianity as the human lineage of Islam, substituted Ishmael for Isaac, and substituted himself for God. Because the devil is a deceiver, thief, liar, and murderer, he could not exercise self control.
Galatians 5:22-23a (NIV) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control.
The devil twisted the writings of Judeo-Christianity, and added passages for deceiving, lying, stealing, and murdering; the devil then put forth through Mohammed, this conglomerated cacophony of lies, now known as the Qur'an.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
"In the quran satan is preaching against himself to deflect attention from himself." What a load of rubbish. Jesus (PBUH) himself said: a house divided against itself cannot stand. Did you miss that lesson in Sunday school?
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Originally Posted By: Tman
"In the quran satan is preaching against himself to deflect attention from himself." What a load of rubbish. Jesus (PBUH) himself said: a house divided against itself cannot stand. Did you miss that lesson in Sunday school?
The Satanic Verses and their implications for the Miracle of the Qur'an. Here I only want to reflect on the implications of this event on the claimed miracle of eloquence which propsed as proof for the divine authorship of the Qur'an.
Muslim authorities admit that Muhammad was at one time inspired by Satan to put some verses into the Qur'an. Some time later, upon receiving further revelation from Jibril, that those verses were not from God, but interjected by Satan, they were removed again. The Qur'an reports about it in Surah 22:52
Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise; This means Satan was able to interfere with Muhammad's revelation and create some verses in praise of the idols al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, [see Sura 53:19-20], calling them "al-Gharaniq al-ula", "the high birds". He later annulled this (see Asbab al-Nuzul by al-Wahidi; chapter on why Sura al-Hajj was revealed).
It seems that Satan was able to inspire some verses and nobody realized it until Allah pointed it out by giving further revelation. This means in particular: there was no "inferior language" in those verses which came from Satan in comparison to those which came (supposedly) from Allah because Muhammad didn't realize it at the time.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
As we say in Ja: satan can do anything except blow breath, he even tempted Jesus (PBUH). But even if we were to accept this version of events, which most Muslim scholars don't, in the end Allah (SWT) 'corrected' him, so no harm done. I will post the Islamic view on this incident, insh'ALLAH, (God willing).
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
noel: as promised... read and learn and "Stop spreading propaganda pon the Prophet" after Jacob
"Those Are The High Flying Claims" M S M Saifullah, Qasim Iqbal, Mansur Ahmed & Muhammad Ghoniem
Assalamu-`alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu: 1. Introduction We would like to discuss some of the claims of a Christian missionary concerning the so-called 'Satanic verses'. The gist of the missionary's argument is in the last paragraph, which we have divided into various points for the sake of refutation: But, to repeat, Rushdie did not originate the satanic verses. Nor did Jews, Christians or other non-Muslims. The sources for the satanic verses, at-Tabari and Ibn Sa'd, are reputable Muslim sources for early Quranic commentary and Islamic history. Muslims today who simply dismiss the account of these writers as fabricated and unhistorical must at least answer the question why such reputable persons would fabricate it. The question is not new. But, it seems, a serious Muslim response is hard to find. We agree that Salman Rushdie did not originate the so-called 'Satanic' verses. In the Islamic sources the whole saga is known as Hadith al-Gharaniq al-cUla; therefore neither are the Islamic sources responsible for such a theatrical title. Who then coined the term 'Satanic verses'? As the tradition of defamation against Islam demonstrates, it could only have been Christian missionaries. Indeed, it was an English missionary, the belligerent Sir William Muir, who fashioned the term 'Satanic verses'. The word Maometis means The number of the beast, i.e., 666, by which Muhammad (PBUH) was known in the Middle Ages. The names Mahoun and Mahound refer to Muhammad(PBUH), imagined by credulous Europeans to be a pagan God. These derogatory names were concocted by "love-thy-neighbor", "turn-thy-cheek" Christians who maintained an open policy of defamation against Islam and Muhammad(PBUH) throughout the Middle Ages. Apparently, this policy still exists today, though in a more sophisticated apparatus. Now let us address the statements from the Christian missionary: The sources for the satanic verses, at-Tabari and Ibn Sa'd, are reputable Muslim sources for early Quranic commentary and Islamic history. Where do Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d.Hijrah 310/923 Common Era) and Ibn Sa'd claim to be the sources of the so-called 'Satanic verses'? It is precisely the opposite. They have only transmitted the story as it was transmitted to them. Al-Tabari mentions the so-called 'Satanic verses' story in his Tarikh as well as an important set of statements in the introduction of his book, which states: “Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference. Hence, if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us.” Thus, al-Tabari faithfully displayed these accounts in the exact manner through which he received them. Can he then be held liable if any objectionable accounts should arise? To translate this into laymen's terms, al-Tabari has simply refused accountability by avoiding the task of historical criticism. Therefore, any spurious accounts are not to be attributed to him. This would not be difficult to understand, given the fact that the so-called 'Satanic verses' were transmitted from al-Waqidi to Ibn Sa'd. Ibn Sa'd (d. 230/845), who was the secretary of al-Waqidi (d. 207/823), also assumed the role of a mere transmitter by citing the text and its isnad (authentic chain of transmission). Concerning the two historians, al-Waqidi and Ibn Sa'd, the contemporary scholar, Tarif Khalidi, says: “For it is clear that Waqidi is in fact the senior partner. Ibn Sa'd, known of course as 'katib al-Waqidi', was a secretary-editor of his master and of the materials he had assembled and then amplified.” In other words, neither al-Waqidi nor Ibn Sa'd were eye-witnesses to the revelation of 'Satanic verses'; they were simply the transmitters. It is also worthwhile to mention that: Waqidi was attacked for loose isnad usage by strict practitioners of Hadith. Claiming that the issue of so-called 'Satanic verses' incident is true just because al-Tabari or Ibn Sa'd mentioned them amounts to a deliberate distortion of the facts. Now we will address the issue of why Muslims today simply dismiss the account mentioned by these two writers. To begin with, Muslims exegetes in the past have dismissed these accounts, too. This is not something new. Michael Fischer and Mehdi Abedi, writing on the issue of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses as well as the Islamic account of the so-called 'Satanic' verses, say (and notice their curious argument): “The story that Muhammad could have used the Satanic suggestion is rejected by almost all exegetes, but the fact that the story persists as a subject of exegetes' discussions is testimony to the reality of the temptation both for Muhammad and for later Muslims in their own struggles with such "Babylons" as London, New York, Paris, or Hamburg.” Since the story is rejected by almost all the exegetes, are the Muslims not justified in dismissing the account related to the so-called 'Satanic verses'? One is also tempted to add the research done by Orientalists like John Burton, who instead of parroting Muir and Watt, concluded with an original argument: “There existed therefore a compelling theoretical motive for the invention of these infamous hadiths. If it be felt that this has now been demonstrated, there should be no further difficulty in suggesting that those hadiths have no historical basis.” From here, let us move on to the Muslim argument against the so-called 'Satanic' verses. 2. 'Satanic' Verses & The Muslim Argument In this section, we will examine the Christian missionary's complaint. One really wonders if this missionary has even read any literature, both modern as well as old, on this subject. We have seen above that according to Michael Fischer and Mehdi Abedi almost all the Islamic exegetes have rejected the story of so-called 'Satanic' verses. They have not just rejected it without giving their reasons! In the modern literature, there is a copious amount of work done by Muslims dealing with the 'Satanic verses'. Notable among them are the two books of Abu A'la Mawdudi Tahfim al-Qur'an (1972) and Sirat-i Sarwar-i 'Alam (1979), which critically examines all the aspects of the story and evaluates the writings of early Muslim scholars on this subject quite thoroughly. One is also tempted to mention the works of Sayyid Qutb (Fi Zilal al-Qur'an) and M. H. Haykal (The Life Of Muhammad). Zakaria Bashier, in his book, The Makkan Crucible, deals with the issue quite thoroughly. Also mentioned in Appendix 2 in his book is an article The 'Satanic' Verses And The Orientalists (A Note On The Authenticity Of The So-Called Satanic Verses). This is a revised version of the article that was published in the journal, Hamdard Islamicus. We reproduce the article below with minor modifications. Al-Tabari, Ibn Sa'd and some other Muslim writers have mentioned (though they vary considerably in the matters of detail) that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), under Satanic inspiration added two verses to Surah an-Najm [53], which are as follows: “These are the high-flying ones, whose intercession is to be hoped for!” The Prophet((PBUH)), it is alleged, recited these along with other verses of Surah an-Najm in the prayer. The idolators of Makkah who were present in the Ka'bah at that time joined him in the prayer because he praised their deities and thus won their hearts. The story afterwards reached Abyssinia where the Muslims, persecuted by the Makkan infidels, had earlier migrated and many of them returned to Makkah under the impression that the disbelievers no longer opposed the Prophet(PBUH) and the Islamic movement. The story also says that the angel Gabriel came to the Prophet(PBUH) the same evening and told him about the mistake he had committed by reciting verses which were never revealed to him. This naturally worried the Prophet(PBUH) and made him apprehensive. 'Admonishing' the Prophet(PBUH, God revealed the following verses of Surah al-Isra' which read: “And their purpose was to tempt thee away from that which We had revealed unto thee, to substitute in our name something quite different; (in that case), behold! they would certainly have made thee (their) friend! And had We not given thee strength, thou wouldst nearly have inclined to them a little. In that case We should have made thee taste an equal portion (of punishment) in this life, and an equal portion in death: and moreover thou wouldst have found none to help thee against Us” [Qur'an 17:73-75] This made the Prophet(PBUH) feel very guilty until God revealed the following consoling verse of Surah al-Hajj: “Never did We send a messenger or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom” [Qur'an 22:52] This is the gist of the story mentioned by al-Tabari and some other writers that has been used by the Christian missionaries. The story would, among other things, imply that the Prophet(PBUH) and his Companions (may Allah have mercy on them)) took the 'Satanic' verses as a true revelation from God, otherwise nobody would have accepted them. Let us now examine the story and its contents in the light of internal and external evidence and evaluate it on the basis of criteria of historical criticism. In doing so, first of all one has to find out the chronological sequence in the story and establish whether or not all its details relate to one period and are interconnected. Special attention should be devoted to determining the periods of revelation of the three verses mentioned in the report, which will validate or falsify the episode. It can easily be gleaned from the story that the incident of reciting the 'Satanic' verses and the consequent prostration of the disbelievers in the Ka'bah happened after the first batch of Muslims had migrated to Abyssinia. This migration, according to all the reliable sources, occurred in the month of Rajab of the fifth year of the Prophetic call or about eight years before the Hijrah to Madinah. Therefore, the incident must have happened close to this date and not long after the migration to Abyssinia. The verses of Surah al-Isra' (17:73-5) which were revealed, according to the story, to 'admonish' the Prophet(P) for allegedly reciting the 'Satanic' verses, in fact were not revealed until after the event of the Mi'raj. The Mi'raj or the Ascent of the Prophet(P), according to historical sources, occurred in the tenth or eleventh year of the Prophetic call, i.e., two or three years before the Hijrah to Madinah. If this is so, then it implies that the 'Satanic' verses were not detected or for some reason no mention was made about the alleged interpolation of the verses for five or six years and only afterwards was the Prophet(PBUH) admonished for it. Can any sensible person believe that the interpolation occurs today, while the admonition takes place six years later and the abrogation of the interpolated verses is publicly announced after nine years. The relevant verse of Surah al-Hajj (22:52) according to the commentators of the Qur'an was revealed in the first year of Hijrah, i.e., about eight to nine years after the incident and about two and a half years after the so-called admonition of the Prophet(PBUH) (17:73-5). Can anybody who knows about the Qur'an, its history and revelation, understand and explain how the incident of interpolation was allowed to be tolerated for six years and also why the offensive 'verses' were not abrogated until after nine years? The implication of this argument is that since the abrogating verses were revealed nine years after the original event, that would mean that for nine years Muslims had been asking Lat, Manat and Uzza for intercession! In other words outright idolatry resulting from compromised monotheistic beliefs. It is therefore quite pretentious to suggest any historicity in the notion that Muslims had been asking Lat, Manat and Uzza for intercession over the span of almost a decade. Watt's theory is that “... the earliest versions do not specify how long afterwards this (abrogation) happened; the probability is that it was weeks or even months” is nothing but a hypothesis. Had he investigated the chronology of the three revelations relative to the story, he could not possibly have missed the facts related above. Let us now turn to some internal evidence. It has been said in the story that the 'Satanic' interpolation occurred in Surah an-Najm (53:19) which delighted the idolators present in the Ka'bah and as a gesture of friendship and good-will, they all bowed down with the Prophet(PBUH). In order to comment on the story it would seem necessary to read the verses in the Qur'an, adding the alleged 'Satanic' verses, and find out what is actually meant to be conveyed here. It would read as follows. “Have ye seen Lat and 'Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat? [These are the high-flying ones, whose intercession is to be hoped for!] What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! These are nothing but names which ye have devised,- ye and your fathers,- for which Allah has sent down no authority (whatever). They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord.” [Qur'an 53:19-23] If one reads the alleged Satanic verses quoted above, one fails to understand how God on the one hand is praising the deities and on the other hand discrediting them by using the subsequent phrases quoted above. It is also difficult to see how the Quraysh leaders drew the conclusion from this chapter that Muhammad(PBUH) was making a conciliatory move and was adopting a policy of give and take. Drawing the conclusions from various reports connected with the story, Watt suggests that “... at one time Muhammad must have publicly recited the Satanic verses as part of the Qur'an; it is unthinkable that the story could have been invented later by Muslims or foisted upon them by non-Muslims. Secondly, at some later time Muhammad announced that these verses were not really part of the Qur'an and should be replaced by others of a vastly different import.” Watt's suggestion that Muhammad (PBUH) replaced the 'Satanic' verses with some others of a vastly different import is pure speculation. If one takes the 'Satanic' verses to be true, it would imply that the verses to be found in 53:19f. were not revealed in the same period. Watt's suggestion also implies that Muhammad(PBUH) and his followers read the 'Satanic' verses in place of or in addition to the verses found in the Qur'an for 'weeks and even months' and that when Muhammad(PBUH) later realized that these verses could not be correct, then the true version and continuation of the passage was revealed to him. This supposition is again pure speculation and is not based on any historical data. The story which we have summarized in the beginning suggests that Muhammad(PBUH) did not realize his fault until God admonished him six years later and that the matter was rectified perhaps another two and a half years after. In the meantime the Muslims were supposedly asking Allat, Manat and Uzza for intercession! Had the genuine state of affairs truly been this ridiculous, it would have been impossible for Muhammad(PBUH) to have maintained such a loyal following. It is obvious that Watt and other Orientalists accept part of the story and reject the related parts along with their destructive implications, apparently because they are unable to find any link or sequence. Had there been any element of truth in the story, it could have caused a great scandal against Islam and the Prophet(PBUH) and every detail of this scandal must have found its place in the hadith literature. Why is the authentic hadith collection conspicuously silent about the scandalous part of the story? Does it not lead to the conclusion, contrary to the established fact, that hadith literature itself is very defective as it failed to record such an important event which led the Prophet(PBUH) and his Companions(may Allah have mercy on them) to read 'Satanic' verses for weeks, months or perhaps even years without realizing the error, all the while asking for the intercession of Lat, Manat and Uzza? In fact, al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Nasa'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal all record the story, but only to the extent that was true. They all mention that the Prophet(PBUH) did recite Surah an-Najm and that, at the end when he prostrated, the idolaters present were so overawed that they also joined him in prostration. These leading Muhaddithun do not mention the blasphemous story which other sources have recorded. 3. Conclusions It is quite clear that the nature of the story is absurd and it cannot stand the external and internal criticism. It is even clearer from the Qur'an that it is not possible for the Prophet(PBUH) to accept anything in the Qur'an from any external source. If this is so, then how can one take seriously, let alone believe in the so-called story of the 'Satanic' revelation? This is why the leading traditionalists and the exegetes in Islam have regarded this story as malicious and without foundation. It is unfortunate that an eminent historian like al-Tabari mentioned this story in his Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk and did not make any comment on its authenticity except to mention that he had faithfully transmitted whatever he received. Although there is great advantage in such a methodology (See reference 2 above) there are also risks. Unscrupulous people, i.e., the Christian missionaries, may take advantage of this and try to concoct something as they indeed did in the fabrication of the malicious story of the 'Satanic' verses. The fact that al-Tabari, Ibn Sa'd and others have recorded this story in their works does not prove that the story itself is true. The missionary entertains a challenge to the Muslims: “Muslims today who simply dismiss the account of these writers as fabricated and unhistorical must at least answer the question why such reputable persons would fabricate it.” What the fellow is desperately pleading for is the source of the story. We have already witnessed that neither al-Tabari nor Ibn Sa'd is responsible for producing these stories. While the missionary himself conveniently attributes the accounts of al-Tabari and Ibn Sa'd with historical legitimacy, at least with regards to this particular incident, he is directing a sort of challenge to the Muslims who reject the historicity of the account. Thus, if the Muslims, not to mention Orientalists, dismiss the story as having no historical basis, then the missionary demands to know where the story came from, i.e. who is the individual responsible for concocting such an outlandish story. Somehow, he feels as though this is an uncomfortable question. However, an answer to this silly challenge is, what does it matter what the source is of such an absurd rumour? Rumours with even the most powerful effects of credulity have rarely seen their source discovered. Yet, we are not aware of any Muslims that actually believe the aforementioned story, and this position is cogently justified on the grounds of rigorous historical criticism. However, episodes of fabulous rumors followed by a credulous following are quite common outside the history of Islam. For example, it was rumoured that Jesus(PBUH) traveled to India. It was rumoured that St. Matthew actually wrote the Gospel According to St. Matthew. It was rumoured that Islamic fundamentalists were responsible for the Oklahoma bombing. It was rumoured that UFOs visited Roswell, New Mexico. However, just because we do not know the individuals responsible for these rumours, does this mean that the rumours are true? Is the absence of an identified source of these rumours supposed to be construed as some sort of threat? The naïve implications of this method of inquiry should bring shame upon anybody who entertains them. Finally, in light of the above, it can quite effortlessly be concluded that the Christian missionaries' attempt to answer to the inimitability of the Qur'an, by building upon the poor scholarship of a fellow missionary, is thus nothing other than a product of gross ignorance and sheer tomfoolery. And Allah knows best!
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Tman it's time for you to admit the fact that One of the most embarrassing events in Muhammad's life occurred when Satan put his words in Muhammad's mouth. Muhammad spoke Satan's words as the word of God. This event is documented by several early Muslim scholars and referenced in the Hadith and Quran. Later Muslims, ashamed that their self declared prophet spoke Satan's words, denied the event occurred. A myriad of excuses and denials have been put forth by these later Muhammadans to cover up Muhammad's sinful error.
It must be pointed out again that the "Satanic Verses" event is not something made up by non-Muslims. The event is recorded by the earliest Islamic sources available on Muhammad's life. No one should think that it is a story made up by people who are critical of Islam. It is an episode directly found in the early Islamic records. This topic is one of the most controversial in Islam. Satan caused Muhammad to recite his words as God's words. The background to this event is that Muhammad and his followers were being persecuted for attacking the pagan faiths of Mecca, and he did not want to further offend his Arab tribesmen, and, he wanted them to become his followers, i.e. Muslims. In fact Muhammad wished that God would not reveal anything further to him that would further alienate his fellow Arabs. So when opportunity arose, he spoke what Satan put into his heart and mind as God's word.
In the Old Testament (OT), if someone caused the people to worship other gods he was put to death - Deuteronomy 13:1 - 5:
"If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and promise you omens or portents, and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, "Let us follow other gods" (whom you have not known) "and let us serve them," you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. ... But those prophets or those who divine by dreams shall be put to death for having spoken treason against the Lord your God ... So you shall purge the evil from your midst." This is exactly what Muhammad did - he advocated the worship of pagan deities as intercessors with God. Later, after Muhammad admitted his mistake and took back the words, he had the audacity to say that God made light of the event! God has never made light of sin or false prophets.
Think about it Tman, which of the Old Testament prophets ever spoke the words of Satan? Those prophets loved their people, but they persisted in speaking the truth to them, not compromising the word of God to gain peace and converts as Muhammad did.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
I don't expect you to accept the teachings of the true scholars of Muhammad's (PBUH) life but to continue to spill the propaganda taught to you by Orientalits and other missionaries. You Crusaders will use and lie, big or small, to try to discredit the Apostle of ALLAH (SWT) but the proof of the pudding is in the eating and Islam continues to be the fastest growing religion in the world today, despite all your lame attempts to discredit it. What you are really doing, and you are not aware of, is driving the uncommitted to search for the Truth for themselves from authentic source, and by doing this ALLAH (SWT) lead the to the Truth and they become Muslims. So I must thank you for your efforts in this regard and you will receive your reward for the good works you are doing although you had no intention of doing so, but ALLAH (SWT) works in mysterious ways. For example: do you know how many people turned to Islam after 9/11? The numbers are staggering. And why did this happen? Because they question the faith of these men to do such a deed, and the motivation that was driving them. So many more people began to do research into Islam and so it led to millions of more converts. Even myself have to do more research to answer your questions and it has strengthened my faith and convictions as I learn more from authentic Islamic sources, so a personal thanks from me too. This is like a practice match for me as I am preparing to go home to help spread the news to the rapidly growing number of converts there and some of your statements are what I am going to encounter there, as the Ja people love them "geesas", so in that regard I want to also thank you for the "run out". Bowl another one so I can lick it over the fence, insh'ALLH (God willing). PS: I hear there is a Muslim congregation in every parish in Ja now.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
PS: I hear there is a Muslim congregation in every parish in Ja now. [/quote]
Lots of Batty man and lesbians are in every parish in JA, so what's your point?
MUHAMMAD SPOKE THE SATANIC VERSES - THE EVIDENCE AND PROOF Muslims frequently use the phrase "bring forth the proof". Well, the proof is presented here.
This event is documented by the four early biographical writers of Muhammad's life: Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Sa'd, and Tabari. The Hadith and Quran also contain direct references. Additionally several other Islamic scholars on Hadith (traditions) support the event's occurrence.
One Islamic book on Muhammad's life provides the following list:
"... many of the traditionalists have recorded it with reference to the chains of its narrators. Among them more commonly known are: al-Tabari, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Mardauyah, Ibn Ishaq, Musa ibn 'Uqba, and Abu Ma'shar. It is all the more strange that Ibn Hajar, a recognized authority on traditions insists on the truth of this report and says, "As we have mentioned above, three of its chains of narrators satisfy the conditions requisite for an authentic report." [2] I have found four of the early Islamic biographical sources for this story in English. Therefore, prior to a discussion and analysis of the event, their writings should be reviewed. What first follows are the four accounts related from the 4 early sources:
1) Tabari's "History", published by SUNY, and translated by Watt [3], 2) the "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", (The Book of the Major Classes), translated by S. Moinul Haq [4], 3) the "Sirat Rasulallah" (The Life of Allah's Prophet) by Ibn Ishaq, translated by A. Guillaume [5], 4) Wakidi's biographical material on Muhammad also includes the story of Muhammad speaking Satan's words. I have not been able to find Wakidi's entire work in English but Wakidi's work is quoted by W. Muir in "The Life of Mahomet" [6]. 5) A sub source from #3 above is found in "New Light on the Life of Muhammad", by A.. Guillaume [7]. This source is from a manuscript containing information from other sources as well as Ibn Ishaq. The writer of the manuscript, Yunus ibn Bukayr, heard Ibn Ishaq's lectures at Kufa (located in modern Iraq), and made notes. 6) Additional supporting evidence will be provided from the Sahih Hadith of Bukhari [8]. 7) Finally, verses from the Quran will be provided as concurring evidence that Muhammad spoke the Quranic verses [9]
THE EVIDENCE: THE EARLY ISLAMIC SOURCES NOTE: My comments will be in [ ] type brackets. Author's brackets will be in ( ) type brackets. TABARI volume 6, page 107
SATAN CASTS A FALSE REVELATION ON THE MESSENGER OF GOD'S TONGUE
The messenger of God was eager for the welfare of his people and wished to effect a reconciliation with them in whatever ways he could. It is said that he wanted to find a way to do this, and what happened was a follows. (170) Ibn Humayd - Salamah-Muhammad b. Ishaq - Yazid b. Ziyad al-Madani - Muhammad b. Ka'b al-Qurazi: When the messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe. With his love for his tribe and his eagerness for their welfare it would have delighted him if some of the difficulties which they made for him could have been smoothed out, and he debated with himself and fervently desired such an outcome. Then God revealed:(171) "By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire..."
and when he came to the words:
Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?
Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words:
"These are the high flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval. (172)
When Quraysh heard this, they rejoiced and were happy and delighted at the way in which he spoke of their gods, and they listened to him, while the Muslims, having complete trust in their prophet in respect of the messages which he brought from God, did not suspect him of error, illusion, or mistake. When he came to the prostration, having completed the surah, he prostrated himself and the Muslims did likewise, following their prophet, trusting in the message which he had brought and following his example. Those polytheists of the Quraysh and others who were in the mosque (173) likewise prostrated themselves because of the reference to their gods which they had heard, so that there was no one in the mosque, believer orunbeliever, who did not prostrate himself. The one exception was al-Walid b. Al-Mughirah, who was a very old man and could not prostrate himself; but he took a handful of soil from the valley in his hand and bowed over that. Then they all dispersed from the mosque. The Quraysh left delighted by the mention of their gods which they had hared, saying,"Muhammad has mentioned our gods in the most favorable way possible, stating in his recitation that they are the high flying cranes and that their intercession is received with approval."
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
The real Islamic proof is provided above. All else is lies which the wicked resort to when they have no answers. You believe every word of the Bible is true so you will believe anything the Crusaders try to peddle. The overwhelming majority of scholars don't believe it and that is good enough for me. You cant diffentiate between a story that was circulating and something that really happened, because of your Sunday school rote upbringing you cant think for yourself. Pharasee: you cant use a demon to drive out a demon, Jesus (PBUH) said that.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
What do today's Muslims need and what does Islam have to offer? A brief introduction: This is an acclaimed Eid-ul-fitr khutba (edited) given by Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem Mohammad in Kingston, Ontario, Canada in early 1997. The article is oratorical as it was intended for a general audience in a mosque. It tells us one of the major reasons why Muslims are suffering today. Dr. Sherif Mohammad's articles (include published books) have intellectual depths and are focused yet they have great literary flows that make the reading pleasant and refreshing. He is a noted Islamic thinker-writer and historian. He is an academic who teaches engineering. Assalam'Alaikum brothers and sisters, Today, we are in fact celebrating our Islam, our being members of the greatest faith ever revealed to mankind, our being believers in the most beautiful and the most comprehensive scripture that ever descended from heaven to earth, our being followers of the greatest man that ever walked on the face of the earth, our being believers in Allah, the One and Only. Had we not been Muslims, we would have not been here today.We would have not known Ramadan, not experienced the sweetness of the fast, not tasted the beauty of the prayers, we would have not known that today is Eid. Today we are celebrating, first and foremost, that we are Muslims. We are celebrating the greatest blessing of our lives: our Islam. Islam is the faith that defines us, defines who we are, defines our identity. Islam is the religion that Allah has chosen for us, has perfected for us, and has granted us as the Quran has eloquently expressed "This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed my favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." (5:3) Islam is a favor, Islam is a privilege, Islam is a bounty from Allah. Islam does not need us. We need Islam. All we have to do is to be grateful for such a great blessing and say, "Praise be to Allah who has guided us to this: never could we have found guidance, had it not been for the guidance of Allah" (7:43) But why is it that we believe that Islam is such a tremendous bounty from Allah? Because there is nothing like Islam on earth: It is Islam that has taught human beings that the Lord their God is One and Only. That He has no partners, no wife, and no son, and that there can be no compromise on the unity of God. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all equal and that no Arab is superior to non-Arab, nor a non-Arab is superior to an Arab and that the best of all of us is the one who is most righteous. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all brothers and sisters created from a single pair of a male and a female. Therefore, Islam, unlike Hinduism, neither recognizes nor condones the idea of a caste system. Islam is at war on caste systems, on aristocracies, and hereditary social groups of all kinds. It is Islam that has taught humanity the value of the intellect, the importance of reflection, and the role of the mind in attaining faith. Christians teach that one can never become a believer except when the Holy Spirit mysteriously occupies one's heart. Islam teaches that faith is the fruit of reason and it is through continuous reflection on the wonders of creation that faith can be obtained, maintained, and nurtured. It is Islam that has taught humanity that people of all races, all colours, all ethnicities are perfectly capable of attaining faith in the One and Only God. Hindus believe that Hinduism is just for those privileged to be born in the faith and therefore they do not invite the "less privileged" to embrace their faith. Jews believe that they are the chosen race and even when they accept others to embrace Judaism, those converts are always lower in rank than those born as Jews. Islam rejects all that and calls upon all people of all backgrounds to submit themselves to their Creator. Once they do, they automatically become members of the community of Islam with the same rights and duties as any other Muslim. Islam is not, and can never be, the monopoly of one race or a certain linguistic group.
It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is absolutely Just and Merciful and that He will never punish one person for the sins of others. Christianity teaches that Adam and Eve had bequeathed their sin to all their descendants and thus all humans are born in this "Original Sin" and therefore Jesus Christ had to be sacrificed on the cross to redeem humanity of its 'original sin.' Islam says, NO. Humans are not born in sin. No person will be held accountable for another's mistakes. Every soul will pay for its own deeds, only. Divine justice is absolute. It is Islam that has taught humanity that righteous deeds are necessary for salvation. Faith is indispensable, but not sufficient. Humans will be admitted to Paradise by their faith and their righteous acts. They have to go together, hand in hand. Many Christian denominations teach that faith in Jesus is enough for salvations. If you accept Jesus sacrifice on the cross, then you are saved regardless of what you may do afterwards because Jesus has already paid for all your sins. Islam totally disagrees. No one can pay for your sins. Faith, doing righteousness, avoiding evil, and continuous repentance are the only ways for salvation. Islam does not accept, nor condone the corrupting influence on the individual as well as the society that can be caused by the idea of a "guaranteed" salvation. It is Islam that has taught humanity how to balance the needs of this life and the next. Islam does not accept the idea that renunciation of this world is the best means to get salvation in the next. Catholicism and Buddhism teach that by living a reclusive life, one can attain higher spirituality. Buddhism even taught the recluse must make his living by begging. Islam rejects the whole notion of the alleged goodness of renouncing the world. Islam teaches that best means for advancement in the next life is by getting involved in the affairs of this world by commanding good and forbidding evil; by helping one another in righteousness and piety; by doing Jihad, by struggling against all forms of evil, injustice, tyranny, intolerance...Islam does not teach rejection of the world, it teaches involvement, struggle, and change. It is Islam that has taught humanity that kindness to parents, to kin, to neighbours, and to fellow humans is an essential part of faith and righteousness. Christianity claims that Jesus has taught that one cannot come closer to God unless one hates one's father, mother, wife, children,...(Luke 14:26) Islam teaches the opposite. One cannot come closer to God unless one acts so kindly towards one's mother, father, family, neighbuors, etc. It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is very close to them and that He is with them wherever they are and that He hears their prayers and responds to them. Islam teaches that God is so close that He needs no intermediaries to mediate between Him and His servants. Islam does not accept the concept of priesthood and clergy acting as mediators between God and humans. Islam teaches that one does not have to confess one's sins to a priest in order to get forgiveness. One can simply confess one's sins to God without any human intervention, seek forgiveness, and God will grant it. Many Jews today still believe that prayers cannot reach God and get a response from Him unless the prayer is made at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. Some even fax their prayers or send it via the Internet to Jerusalem so that someone there would take it and put it on the Wailing Wall to reach God. Islam teaches that wherever one maybe, one can pray to God, confess to God, seek God's help and forgiveness, and God will certainly respond. No human intervention is needed, no special place or time is necessary. God is always very close. It is Islam that has taught humans to accept and respect their human nature. Islam recognizes the strengths, the weaknesses, and the needs of humans. Islam never requires humans to behave as angels or to ignore their physical and emotional needs. Christianity does not allow divorce. Islam recognizes it as a human reality. Catholicism considers celibacy an ideal. Islam does not. The Anglican Church frowns upon second marriages. Prince Charles in order to become King of England has to behave as a practicing Anglican. Therefore, he can commit adultery openly with his famous mistress but he cannot marry her or else he will lose the throne for violating the rules of the Church of England. Islam never engages in such irrationality and moral contradictions. There is nothing like Islam on earth. There is no faith, no religion, no ideology, no system of belief that can rival Islam in its clarity and simplicity; in its submission to God, the One and Only; in its rationality and intellectual depth; in its egalitarianism and equality; in its spirituality; in its code of ethics; in its unparalleled balance between the needs of this life and the demands of the hereafter. Islam has elevated the human soul, body, and mind to heights that have never been reached by any other faith or tradition. Islam is the only religion that has truly enabled human beings to fulfill their humanity. Islam is like a perfect piece of art at which the human eye can keep looking and scrutinizing for days, weeks, years on end and still can find no flaws, no defects, and no contradictions. All the human eye can do is to keep wondering at the amazing beauty and coherence of this faith of ours: Islam. Leopold Wiess, the Austrian Jew who embraced Islam in 1926 and became one of the greatest Muslim intellects of the twentieth century has expressed the same level of astonishment at the overwhelming beauty and coherence of Islam, "I was asked, time and again: 'Why did you embrace Islam? What was it that attracted you particularly?' -- and I must confess: I don't know of any satisfactory answer. It was not any particular teaching that attracted me, but the whole wonderful, inexplicably coherent structure of moral teaching and practical life programme. I could not say, even now, which aspect of it appeals to me more than any other. Islam appears to me like a perfect work of architecture. All its parts are harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other: nothing is superfluous and nothing lacking, with the result of an absolute balance and solid composure. Probably this feeling that everything in the teachings and postulates of Islam is 'in its proper place,' has created the strongest impression on me." In a nutshell, Islam is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It is important to note that Islam is not just a set of ideals, it is a tremendous force capable of transforming and regenerating individuals as well as societies and whole nations. The influence of Islam upon the first society that embraced it, the Arabian peninsula, was nothing short of a revolution. Islam has revolutionized Arabia in all aspects of life: politically, economically, socially, and above all morally: It was Islam that transformed the fiercely independent-minded Arabs who knew no government, obeyed no authority, recognized no state into a nation with a government, a capital, and a respected authority. It was Islam that taught the anarchic Arabs how to elect a head of state from among themselves and how to run their government upon principles of mutual consultation. It was Islam that taught the Arabs who never agreed on any form of law to build a nation based on the rule of one sacred, just, and merciful law. Islam also taught them that they were all equals before the law and no one even the daughter of the Prophet was above the law. It was Islam that transformed the intensely militant Arabs from a group of tribes massacring each other all the time -- to the extent that they had to agree on four months of peace every year to prevent their whole race from extinction due to the incessant wars -- into one nation with united tribal armies able to confront and defeat the armies of the surrounding superpowers: the Byzantines and the Sassanids. It was Islam that abolished usury from Arabia and taught the Arabs how to make business transactions justly and fairly without exploitation or abuse. It was Islam that abolished the gruesome habit of female infanticide from Arabia. It was Islam that taught the Arabs that women were full human beings, not mere chattel, and that they were their sisters in humanity and in faith. It was Islam that guaranteed for Arabian women their rights to: inheritance, property, divorce, and independent legal personality. It was Islam that eradicated alcohol, with all its evils, from Arabia. It was Islam that ended all forms of prostitution, gambling, and intoxicants from the Arabian society. And it was Islam that opened all doors for freeing slaves. It was Islam that uprooted racism from the Arab mind completely to the extent that the deeply racist and arrogant Arabs would accept to be soldiers in armies whose leaders were black Africans. And above all, it was Islam that transformed the idolatrous and superstitious Arabs into believers in the One and Only God. It was Islam that transformed them from idol worshippers into a people who stand together in one line in prayer and prostrate their heads to the Almighty. Arabia before Islam was a society bound by tradition and precedent. Whatever was customary was right and proper. Whatever the forefathers had done deserved to be imitated. Islam rejected this blind faith in tradition. Islam challenged all the customs of the society. Islam questioned all the mores and manners of the Arabs. Islam introduced to them the standards of morality and the fundamentals of right and wrong. Islam taught them how to think critically of everything around them and how to reject the bad habits and keep the good ones. Islam showed them the proper way for peace and happiness in this life and felicity in the next. This was the essence of the revolution that Islam was. The question that irresistibly comes to the mind is this: that was the past, what about now? Can Islam revolutionize the world today as it did to seventh century Arabia? Is Islam relevant today? Does Islam have anything to offer today's world? Yes, a great deal. For us, Muslims living in the West, it would be reasonable to focus on what Islam has to offer to our Western society at the dawn of a new millennium. The West, as the seventh century Arabia and as any other society for that matter, has its own virtues as well as vices. Islam can improve and enhance all the virtues while eliminating -- or, at least, minimizing -- the vices. In a society where alcohol is the number one cause of criminal death and injury; where alcohol costs billions of dollars each year in medical expenses and property damage; where alcohol consumption causes the death of hundreds of thousands of people annually; where alcohol is a major cause of rape and domestic violence -- Is there any faith more able than Islam to prevent all the ills of alcohol? In a society still tormented by racial strife; where "black" churches are continuously fire-bombed by bigots of all kinds; where one rarely sees a black person in a "white" church or a white person in a "black" church -- Islam has so much to offer because Islam does not tolerate the very idea of a "black" mosque or a "white" mosque; Islam obliges believers to stand together in one line, shoulder to shoulder and foot to foot, and prostrate their foreheads to God so that they learn they are all humble servants of the Almighty. In a society where violence against women has risen to alarming proportions, where it is not safe for women to walk alone in the dark, where even institutions of higher learning have to provide 'walk home service' to protect women on campus at night - Islam has much more to contribute than escort services or karate lessons. Islam does implant modesty and sense of propriety in the minds of the believers, Islam eradicates vulgarity, Islam eliminates any possibility that men view women as sex objects. In a society as violent as the United States where some 25000 lives are taken every year by handguns alone; where 5% of the world population consume 50% of the world's illegal drugs despite the arrest of some 700,000 drug dealers every year; where a car is stolen every few seconds; where a woman is raped every few minutes - Islam has a lot more to offer than merely putting more cops in the streets. Islam teaches that prevention is better than cure and that crime can best be reduced by taking care of the family, the community, and the neighbourhood. Islam attaches great esteem and honour to the role of the mother because when she takes proper care of her children, the whole society benefits. Islam reminds the fathers of their duties, encourages the neighbours to take care of each other's needs, strengthen community bonds, advocates commanding what is right and forbidding what is wrong instead of apathy and individualism. Islam always eliminates problems from their roots. In a society afflicted with intense individualism, excessive materialism, fierce consumerism, and unabashed sensualism; Islam has the intellectual and the spiritual power required to rectify all the excesses of the society because Islam preaches moderation and balance in all worldly and other-worldly affairs. The influence of Islam is not limited to the social and moral domains, it extends to the political, economic, legal, cultural, and educational realms as well. Two examples should suffice. In the realm of politics: the egalitarian nature of Islam requires major reforms in the way democracy is practiced in the society today. As it stands, the existing democracy is elitist and lopsided in favour of the wealthy, the powerful, and the special interests. The average person almost has no meaningful say in how things are run by the elite. This state of affairs falls far short of the ideal of mutual consultation in all affairs advocated by Islam. In the realm of economics: capitalism left unregulated has a tendency to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. In a period of ten years only (1978-1987) the poorest fifth of the American population got 8% poorer while the richest fifth got 13% richer. This is the nature of capitalism; wealth breeds more wealth, sometimes even without any effort or creativity. Islam obliges all rich people to pay part of their wealth annually to the poor so that the wealth gets redistributed in the society in order to protect the poor from perpetual poverty and give them a fair chance to compete in a world dominated by the tyranny of capital. There is so much in Islam that can truly make the West, and indeed the whole world, a safer, better, and more decent place to live in. Islam is a formidable force with potential great enough to revolutionize the world and radically change the course of history as it once did some 1400 years ago. The problem is we have got the theory, but we don't have the practitioners. We have the revolution but we do not have the revolutionaries. And as there can be no democracy without democrats, no socialism without socialists, there also can be no Islam without Muslims. Islam is a message that is in constant need for messengers to deliver it to the world. Yes, the Book of God is there, the guidance of the Prophet is there, the testimony of history is there, but where are the Muslims? Where are the messengers? Where are the revolutionaries? They effectively do not exist. What does exist in the world today is some sort of "de-Islamized" Muslims. People who call themselves Muslims but the Islam they practice is a vague shadow of the Islam described in the magnificent words of the Quran. Muslims of today practice an Islam without spirit, an Islam without a message to humanity, an Islam without a mission, an Islam without ambition... An Islam without identity. Islam will never revolutionize the world, as it once did, unless there are true Muslims, as they once existed-- Muslims from the inside-out, Muslims in thought and in action, Muslims in theory and in practice, Muslims in private and in public, Muslims in spirit, in intellect, and in emotions. The road to produce such Muslims is long and hard. It is perhaps more realistic to focus on just one good first step. This first step, I believe, would be to raise a generation of Muslim youth who take great pride in their great faith. A generation of young Muslims whose identity is purely Islamic, a generation of Muslims for whom Islam comes first and everything else - national, ethnic, racial, linguistic identity - comes, at best, a distant second-- a generation that totally believes in what the great khalifa Omar once said, " It is only because of Islam that we gained 'izzah' (honour, dignity, and pride), and if we seek 'izzah' outside of Islam, Allah will humiliate us." I once had a conversation with a brother who embraced Islam several years ago. I asked him about the things he liked or disliked the most about Islam and Muslims. His answer was, " Everything about Islam is beautiful, but there is one thing I dislike in Muslims...They do not have a great sense of pride in Islam..." The brother's point is precisely what we need to ingrain in the minds of our new generation: the sense of pride in belonging to Islam - A pride strong enough to make them declare to the whole world openly and loudly, "We are Muslims, and we are extremely proud of it."
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
