Re: Hello people
Reply #136 - January 10, 2010, 11:17 PM
Hello everyone,
Sorry for not answering some of your questions recently and please forgive me if any of my comments have been a bit abrupt and a bit rough around the edges - 20 vs 1 is not easy going! If I do make any more posts they will be general responses like this one - otherwise it gets very time consuming - the other night I didn't get to bed till 7am after telling my wife I'd be 'there in 20 minutes' at 11pm due to continuous questions being asked! But I'd like to sincerely thank you guys once again for your general warm welcome to the site. One or two of you have questioned my respect for your knowledge of Islam. Please note that I fully respect that all of you have an in-depth knowledge of the religion, my position is that Islam evidently can be interpreted in different ways - I am simply offering my own interpretation which of course you are all free to disagree with and prove me wrong. OK, niceties out the way, I'll get started...
One of the general accusations has been what makes me think that Muhammad and his followers came to spread Islam peacefully and how do I know they didn't unjustly instigate the wars themselves. Indeed it has been assumed by one or two of you that I have taken my reasoning from the hadith. On the contrary my reasoning comes from the Quran:
''And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits''
2:190
''But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).''
8:61
''God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loveth those who are just.
God only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.''
60:8-9
Indeed there are many more verses like these in the Quran and it is very clear from these verses that Muslims were only permitted to fight in self-defence. However, there are verses from surah 9 which people often claim tells Muslims to kill all Pagans. If we take the whole passage in its entirety, my interpretation is that this verse was aimed specifically at those Pagan Arabs who broke treaties of truce with the Muslims during a period of war. Indeed there are many Muslims and non-Muslims alike who agree with this interpretation. For a much fuller explanation please see the 'terrorism' section of my blog. Another verse that IsLame mentions is 8:39, the most widely accepted translation and the one given by Shakir is the following:
''And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.''
Therefore the verse tells followers of Islam to fight until there is no more persecution and there is only faith in Allah. However, the last part of the verse says 'but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what that they do'. I fully accept that this last part can be interpreted in a number of ways. However given the numerous other verses in the Quran which clearly only permits fighting in self defence, and since I believe there are no real contradictions in the Quran (these 'contradictions' are dependent on one's own interpretations and in other cases can be explained by verses referring to different specific situations), I believe this last part of the verse means that if the oppression stops then there is to be no more fighting.
Another query which has been raised is why would the Pagan Arabs attack the Prophet and his followers for simply spreading the word of Islam? Well if a lot of people converted to Islam it would have financial repercussions for the Pagan Arabs. In addition, the Prophet telling everyone that their religion was false and misguided would have been an insult to their honour which was a big deal in them days. In my opinion it is easy to imagine why they would want to eliminate the Prophet and his followers especially as one or two of you are quick to point out that it was a 'barbaric region'.
A lot of discussion has focused around verse 65:4. I'll take the translation which a couple of you have given:
SHAKIR: And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair.
And Hassan's view:
''The translation is: Those who haven't menstruated"
I am sure none of you will claim 'beacuse of their young age' or any words like this are contained in the verse itself. Rather as a couple of you have pointed out this extrapolation comes from the tafsirs. The reason I gave the Shabbir Ahmed translation is to show that different extrapolations are possible - I don't think I should be knocked for this since your own interpretation is itself an extrapolation (although be it based on tafsirs). Obviously 'women who have not menstruated' must also wait for a period of three months because these women may be in the early stages of post conception (i.e. since there were no pregnancy tests or any other accurate way of knowing whether a woman is pregnant or not in those days, then she must wait three months after which time it should be obvious that she indeed is pregnant). For example, reasons other than pregnancy for not menstruating could be anorexia, hormonal problems etc. - these types of problems can stop women menstruating for months. Indeed this verse appears to be very careful in trying to eliminate all possibility that a woman may be pregnant since menopausal women are also told to wait three months to alleviate any doubt. Therefore the verse could simply mean (and in my opinion very likely means) those women who haven't menstruated must wait for three months in order to confirm whether she is pregnant or not - i.e. they should not be excused on the grounds that they have a physiological problem for not menstruating (as well as being menopausal) but must wait three months after which pregnancy can more definitively be ruled out - women should be showing at this stage and it should be pretty obvious if she is pregnant. If there is no sign of pregnancy at this stage, the divorce can be finalised. If she is pregnant the couple must wait until she gives birth for divorce to go ahead. In short, I honestly feel we are jumping to unwarranted conclusions if we start claiming the relevant part of the verse was referring to young girls.
I feel compelled to state here that I am quite surprised as to how a lot of you are so very quick to dismiss the Quran as 'made up' or 'false' but on the other hand are willing to take the tafsirs and hadith as true accounts. How sure are you guys the relevant tafsir in this case is credible or itself is free from misinterpretation? Indeed no-one knows exactly when these tafsirs were written but were likely written after the Othman caliphate. It wouldn't be the only example of tafsirs or hadith being written to satisfy the desires of the very men writing them. In a more general sense, since the Quran has been so well preserved over the centuries and since there are obvious signs of corruption in the hadith and tafsirs, shouldn't we hold the Quran as a more reliable source of information over the tafsirs or hadiths?
There are a couple of you who have questioned that the Quran has been preserved word for word. It is true that there exist different Arabic dialects of the Quran and that letters and places of dots etc. may vary. Those who have been openly critical of Islam have suggested that these small changes result in words meaning different things. However experts on Arabic lexicography insist that even though the lettering may be different, the meanings of the words are the same. In addition I am again quite surprised that some of you are so willing to whole-heartedly accept details of the Othman caliphate story that he didn't really know which copy of the Quran was authentic or that he did some editing before distributing copies (given how rightly critical you all generally are). I'd also like to address the question of why God didn't bother preserve all previous revelations but only the Quran - in my opinion the only reason that God protects the Quran from corruption is that Muhammad was the last Prophet. Since no more Prophets were to be sent after Muhammad, God leaves an incorruptible Quran for our guidance.
Regarding the circumcision issue. I stated from the very beginning that I am not sure if this is an authentic Islamic practice - of course this is an ancient practice but we of course believe that Muslims have been round ever since Adam. I have therefore stated it is up to Muslim couples to make the decision for themselves especially since it may have some medical benefits. Although I view female circumcision as mutilation I adhere to my personal view that male circumcision is not mutilation. Indeed I very much doubt that secular governments in the West would allow the procedure to take place in its national hospitals and clinics if they thought it was some form of mutilation. Regarding different forms of hair plucking etc. - again I can't be sure regarding the authenticity of these hadith.
A few of you have accused me of being a bit wishy-washy on my religious views, and perhaps justifiably so. But my position is this. I strongly have faith that the Quran is the word of God and that it has been preserved since it was revealed to Muhammad, regardless of when it was compiled as a single book (i.e. most Muslims believe the Quran was comprehensively compiled by Abu-Bakr and kept with Muhammad's wife Hafsa before Othman felt the need to make authentic copies of it due to the appearance of non-authentic copies). There is undeniably evidence of corruption within the hadiths and tafsirs, and what's more they were written by men. The hadiths and tafsirs are therefore not a reliable source of facts. But I feel reluctant to totally disregard the hadith since I know they must contain valuable information on how to pray etc. Therefore although I will follow the Quran fully, my stances on the hadith are bound to be a bit 'wishy-washy'. I believe that it's up to Muslims to use their God-given intellect and logic to know which ones (or which aspects of them) are true or not but at the same time believe He will not blame us when we get things wrong - as long as we interpret the Quran and hadith as honestly and sincerely as possible and not follow our own desires/agendas. A couple of you have labelled me a 'liberal Muslim' who is in the minority and so that makes my views not important compared to 'ordinary Muslims'. I'm not sure whether I'm in a tiny minority, but even if I am, does it automatically mean my interpretation of Islam is wrong?
Peace
Abu Yunus
''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
Topic: Hello people