Blog

One element of progressive interpretation of the Islamic tradition is contextualisation and one important element of contextualisation is the differentiation between meaning of a text and its significance. While the meaning can be static ( as well as operate at different levels) its significance is dynamic. This aspect of progressive islamic hermeneutics is discussed most systematically by N.H. Abu Zayd as per the quote below taken from Sukidi (2009,207) :The first task of the human interpreter, insists Abū Zayd, is to fully understand the historical meaning of the Qur’ān (al-dalāla al-tārīkhiyya) within the social, historical, and cultural contexts of the first addresses of the text, i.e. the Prophet and his communities. Meaning (ma’nā) of the text may be valid and stable according to what the Prophet meant in the historical past. However, the significance (maghzā) of the text may vary in the present context as a result of the text’s encounters with the human interpreter or the reader in a different time and space. A subsequent task Abū Zayd assigns to the human interpreter is to discover the changing character of significance of the text in the present context.

Ishmael Abraham Abu Zayd was a blind anti-traditionalist and he criticized the legacy of traditional scholars like Salafi extremists. Quran 9:100 praises people who follow the pioneers and predecessors of Islam, and Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him also warned that later impious generations will hate and abuse former righteous generations like Shia extremists. The Arabic word for ‘following’ is Ittiba’ which means following like shadow follows the sun and honey bees follow the queen(yasub).

I am so sad that you have given up your Iman but I pray and hope you will return to Allah. It really pains me to see a practicing muslim like you leaving Islam only because you have somehow concluded that Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was infallible, divine or angelic while his actions tell you otherwise. I know many muslims over glorify him and the opposite is true with Wahabbism. There are the two extremes. The middle path is realizing, that he was a human, a politician, a 7th century ARAB, and a prophet of Allah. I guess I am able to accept that. I weigh his side which my 21st century lifestyle cannot comprehend, but when I look at the Progressive laws/rules and regulations he introduced in 7th century, it out weighs the other side. I don’t believe there is any morality in slavery but I also know it exited in 7th century Arabia. Even though Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and Quran doesn’t command to abolish it, but the out pouring regulations that were applied to this practice are far more convincing to me that it cannot be from anyone but God. You also talk about “imagine your wife, your sister etc ” May I say, IF you were living in a 7th century Arabia, would you rather be a slave under Muhammad, or slave under other religions/culture? I know that the best option would be there was no slavery but if we are dealing with practical life and ground realities, we need to address them.He was a MAN! he wasn’t an angel nor a god. He was a politician, a strange king who LIMITED to 9 wives, 2 slaves in an era when he would not have been questioned for having MORE than 100 even. Why stop at 9 when he could have had as many as he wanted? Ok let’s say for argument sake, because wives have rights so he didn’t want to deal with that but what about slaves? Why not have 100s? I mean come on, Thomas jefferson, the father of our constitution even had 300 slaves in 18th century and no one questioned his integrity because 300 is socially acceptable in 18th century. 7th century slave practice would have justified having a lot more than 2 slaves, don’t you think? It would look bad for him if it was in 21st century, but in 7th century it was a norm for kings to have many while Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم only few? How do you rationalize that? The embarrassment (like you mentioned in case of christian slave woman) that you claim he wanted to avoid, it almost seems like you are looking at 7th century Arabia through the glasses on 21st century man. What embarrassment because in 7th century, it was not just normal, but accepted. Let’s come back to recent history when slave owners, our founding fathers’ wives knew who their husbands are sleeping with and the kids that are born through them. The only difference is that in 18th century, those kids are considered slaves while Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم accepted and wept for his sons who died, one of whom was born through his slave girl. I am sorry if this doesn’t shock you. 7th century man sounds way more progressive than Thomas Jefferson who has given us our “21st century constitutional rights” that we so proudly take as highest level of living standards. Unless you are willing to GIVE UP your constitutional rights because they were penned down by, according to your moral standards, by very immoral and cruel men. You need to remind yourself, its IMMORAL for 21st century, in 7th century even the enslaved didn’t consider it immoral because they would enslave others if given the opportunity. You spoke about saffiya, while completely ignoring the fact that she has transmitted hadiths and has praised Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم saying, he has the “best of character” than any man she knew. That statement means she compared him with her father, her brother and her ex-killed husband and yet she found him the man with best of character. Killing of those men was not to marry Saffiya only which I know you know! their execution was a political move which could mean life and death for muslims of that time.May I recommend you do some introspection because I feel, you left christianity but not the indoctrination of finding divinity in humans. In psychology we call it subconscious social conditioning. It is a mindset, attitude that we learn UNCONSCIOUSLY. The celibacy lifestyle, the catholic fathers, saints and mothers who devoid their beastial nature any gratification, that life is of lie which is not Islam. Jesus is made out to be divine, so he never had wives or any sexual relation, as if sex is sinful filthy. Islam doesn’t preach that and recognizes beastial desires, only teaches us to regulate and control. Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was not god, he did have urges, he did feel pain, he did desire women and he did lead people towards a much higher social standards than what was being practiced around him, in 7th century Arabia.You bring 7th century social practices into 21st century then even their dressing will bother you. Their level of hygiene will bother you. But that would be irrational and flawed way of looking at History and Islam. What Muhammad did was the best in his social context. Islam is not “practicing slavery” or how many times you can or must have sex with who and where. these are not part of the foundation of our faith. To be a muslim, this is the Hadith that holds significance FOR ALL TIMES because it defines Islam. What you are describing is not Islam, but the prescription which was written for a 7th century Arabian society. I am pasting the Hadith that pin-points at what ISLAM is for eternity. (read closely because no where in it is stated that belief in 7th century rules & regulations is part of Islam)While we were one day sitting with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), there appeared before us a man dressed in extremely white clothes and with very black hair. No traces of journeying were visible on him, and none of us knew him. He sat down close by the Prophet (peace be upon him), rested his knee against his thighs, and said, “O Muhammad! Inform me about Islam.”The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, “Islam is that you should testify that there is no deity except Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger, that you should perform salah, pay the Zakah, fast during Ramadan, and perform Hajj to the House, if you are able to do so.”The man said, “You have spoken truly.” We were astonished at his questioning him (the Messenger) and telling him that he was right, but he went on to say, “Inform me about iman.”He (the Messenger of Allah) answered, “It is that you believe in Allah and His angels and His Books and His Messengers and in the Last Day, and in qadar (fate), both in its good and in its evil aspects.” He said, “You have spoken truly.”Then he (the man) said, “Inform me about Ihsan.” He (the Messenger of Allah) answered, “It is that you should serve Allah as though you could see Him, for though you cannot see Him yet (know that) He sees you.”He said, “Inform me about the Hour.” He (the Messenger of Allah) said, “About that, the one questioned knows no more than the questioner.” So he said, “Well, inform me about the signs thereof.” He said, “They are that the slave-girl will give birth to her mistress, that you will see the barefooted, naked, destitute, the herdsmen of the sheep (competing with each other) in raising lofty buildings.” Thereupon the man went of. I waited a while, and then he (the Messenger of Allah) said, “O Umar, do you know who that questioner was?” I replied, “Allah and His Messenger know better.” He said, “That was Jibril (the Angel Gabriel). He came to teach you your religion.”

Ishmael Abraham Assalamu alaykum sister May Allah reward you for the passionate and persuasive comment on brother Isma’eel’s timeline. I would add that Quran 90:11-13 does abolish slavery by saying that if we want to liberate our souls from a valley in Hellfire called aqabah we must liberate slaves. And, liberation from Hellfire is an eternal issue transcending 7th century.

Floris Noor JazakAllah khayr…this is so beautiful and precise “…And have shown him the two ways? But he has not broken through the difficult pass. And what can make you know what is [breaking through] the difficult pass? It is the FREEING of a slave Or feeding on a day of severe hunger…”

Atheists show cowardice in specifically dealing with theological nuances of Islam and how it is the most dialectically victorious faith

Lincoln Phipps WTF did I read ? “Atheist” is NOT the same as “Arian”. Is the OP autocorrect playing up ?

Ishmael Abraham The post is intended to show to atheists why Islam is the most rationally consistent faith, and atheists use religious differences a lot as a red herring.

Lincoln Phipps No, your intent is to insult atheists and your evidence is that you post examples of a number of tumblr blogs, none of which are “atheist”

Ishmael Abraham If you find a rational concern insulting then your insecure ideology is built upon the brink of a fiery abyss(Quran 3:103).

Lincoln Phipps If Islam is victorious then it is as the antithesis. In time it will pass and remain as a residue in the cultural artefacts of society.

 Ishmael Abraham Islam has a spiritual resonance transcending Hegelian dialectic.

frederick-the-ii:

Kind of an off question for what’s usually on my blog, but I was doing some reading on Sir Issac Newton and I came across one of his archived notes, it was twelve points why he thought Arian Christianity was the correct doctrine of the biblical relationship between God and Jesus. Could I maybe ask my followers and the Lutheran/Catholic/Protestant/Orthodoxy and even Arian (if it exists on here) sides of tumblr to weight in on it?

Arianism is the belief that I primarily identify with, though it isn’t around anymore in an institutionalized form. It’s a hierarchical form of Christianity that stresses the inequality of the father over the son. It was favoured by Roman emperors, the first king of Italy; and Gothic, Vandal, and Lombardic warlords. Unitarians and Jehovahs Witnesses are sort of like modern, neutered Arians. For someone like Newton, who believed that our existence was subordinate to the laws of a greater force, this makes sense. He even defines the supremacy of God in terms of greatness, power, that which we are dependent on, that which has an affect on the future, and that which has a causal affect on us. Tesla once said that “what one man calls God another calls the laws of physics”, however, in the case of many natural philosophers, God and the laws of physics were one (if not highly interrelated).

The Islamic counterpart of 望子成龍(望子成龙 would be: May my son become a Lion of God or Asadullah. And, since dragon was considered the ruler of weather, the Islamic counterpart would be angel Michael peace be upon him. Since some people call themselves children of Dragon, the Islamic counterpart would be what Salman the Persian may Allah be pleased with him said: I am a son of Islam and a grandson of Islam.

Imam Jafar As-Sadiq(r) wanted to know about the sacred knowledge of his martyred uncle Imam Zayd Ash Shaheed(r).

Imam Zayd Ash Shaheed(r) wanted to pray in Masjid As Sahlah when he was in the house of a martyred follower Mu’awiyah bin Is-haq Al-Ansari but could not.

Khidr who taught Moses peace be upon him also stayed in Masjid As Sahlah

Mother of Believers would disagree with that because under Islamic law, alive images themselves are forbidden let alone images of Prophets which Muslims find blasphemous.

I purchased a cushion with pictures on it. The Prophet (came and) stood at the door but did not enter. I said (to him), “I repent to Allah for what (the guilt) I have done.” He said, “What is this cushion?” I said, “It is for you to sit on and recline on.” He said, “The makers of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it will be said to them, ‘Make alive what you have created.’ Moreover, the angels do not enter a house where there are pictures.’”

I have answered the questions of Bill Lauritzen whom you quote as the authority of your blind faith in anti-religion.

I rarely give up on a book but this one has been sorely disappointing. Lauritzen comes off as arrogant and a know-it-all. I am interested in anthropology pieces, early humanity, religion, etc. And I also find geology and the way the earth works fascinating. So I really expected to like this book. I should have put the book down in the preface when he says, and I quote,

“I try to speculate in a rational and responsible manner. Remember that the most extravagant speculations are those that claim “supernatural” powers and events! The speculations I make are realistic, tame and quite credible in comparison. The burden of proof lies on those who claim extraordinary events, not with those who logically interpret historical religious and mythological writings considering natural phenomena.”

Since when is burden of proof one sided in intellectual work? I continued reading my ebook version, up to 38% when I just couldn’t take it anymore. He doesn’t give any evidence for his drastic claims. I am not saying that his opinions are completely without value, but the way he delivers them and with a lack of support is appalling. He quotes from several cultures ancient or religious texts but only references websites in his notes page and we don’t know how accurate the translations he is using are. And what he does is total coercion: he places in brackets throughout the quotes the words and images he wants us to see, for example while talking about the Garden of Eden story from the Bible,

“And the Lord God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life [volcano] and eat, and live forever.’ So the Lord God banished from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side (or placed in front) of the Garden of Eden cherubim [lava bombs] and a flaming sword flashing back and forth [volcanic lightning] to guard the way to the tree of life.”

This is one sample. He quotes in a similar way from the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. It’s like he is forcing his ideas on the reader instead of giving a strong foundation for them.

I found his style heavy handed and overbearing and it overshadowed any value his interpretations may have had. It is not beyond the scope that the pyramids could represent volcanoes. But random unexplained statements, such as the Garden of Eden was in Java, and Tibetan mandalas are representations of volcanoes do not sit well with me.

I do not expect people to have particular religious beliefs, however, not believing in God does not mean that the spiritual world and the ancient texts of the world’s cultures are trite and meaningless and for ignorant people. Religion and spirituality have their own innate value. It is a different kind of knowledge and wisdom and I feel as though it is condescending and ignorant of people who makes the claim that Lauritzen did in the preface that to “rid ourselves of religion, we need to understand how it started.” Who is he to say we need to rid ourselves of something that is inherently human, representing our creativity and our passion and our connection to humanity? Yes, we need to rid ourselves of the violence that zealotry in any religion unfortunately causes, but there is a whole other side to religion that should not be eradicated. Why does religious and spiritual beliefs persist in countries where the government suppresses it?

I would be very interested to hear from people who really like this book. Sorry for the tirade!

 Bill Lauritzen I have nothing against religion, Caitlin, except when it claims ultimate truth. Physics is true everywhere one the globe, but as you know, in some countries, Jesus is god, in some countries it’s Rama, etc. I certainly don’t know everything, and i invited people to read the ancient texts for themselves. I merely presented a theory which I felt covered all the facts better than any other theories. The best part of the book was the second half, so I am sorry you didn’t read it.

Bill Lauritzen I understand how you feel. But what exactly is”spirituality”? Can you exactly define it? You’re right there is the other side to religion, what do we need religion to bring out in us this side? I am not so sure. Do we need God in order to be good? Is religion a local phenomena that is no longer relevant in a global age? Physics is true all around the world. Not so with religion. Some things to think about which I hope to address in my next book .

Ishmael Abraham { in some countries, Jesus is god, in some countries it’s Rama } As an orthodox and orthoprax Muslim, this can be explained on the basis of Quranic(2:213) theory of common origin of all religions from the same primordial religion of Islam meaning willing surrender to God, which later on corrupted(2:79) into distinct polytheistic forms due to man-made additions to the original revealed unitarian sacred texts. For example, Hindu texts clearly teach unitarianism(tawhid) as Dr. Zakir Naik explains to Hindu monk Ravi Shankar. And, one can see that anti-unitarian verses appears in John which is the latest of all gospels and this accords with the Quranic theory. Just like physics is prevailing over ignorance of the physical world, Quran 61:9 teaches that Islam will prevail over spiritual ignorance at the end of history as the ultimate revealed truth. Islam encourages students to be unifiers of reason and revelation(jami al maqul wal manqul) like Averroes honouring whom an asteroid and a lunar crater have been named.

 Ishmael Abraham According to Islam, spirituality is not something vague like everything to everyone. It simply means that one does not become a hypocrite by acting in a sinful way that is against professed beliefs. Religions other than Islam condone that hypocrisy based on the concept of antinomianism, But, Islam teaches a pronomian spirituality which means that we love God the way He wants to be loved in accordance with the sacred law, not in accordance with our lusts and egos. For example, Jesus peace be upon him was circumcised, and did not eat pork like Muslims but many Christians break those commandments citing antinomian spirituality which Jesus peace be upon him did not teach.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show…

Day 4 of Scripture Challenge. I challenge Sis Robin Miller to post scriptures for 10 days and each day Challenge a different person to do the same. God bless……And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.The main concern of every person who comes to the Lord should be to know His word and His will. It is extremely important that we who proclaim God’s message make sure that it is truly FROM GOD, and not just a popular teaching that is going around!! Our preaching should be based on the words of Jesus, the New Testament apostles or Old Testament prophets. Saved and lost alike need to hear the truth preached from anointed people who are committed to walking in God’s ways and will.

Linda Spencer I forgot to add that this scripture is from Isaiah 2:3.

Ishmael Abraham We call the ways of Prophets to be sunnah. You can learn the ways of all Prophets through The Way of Last Prophet at sunnah.com. The true Zion is near the valley of Baca. Psalm 84 3 Even the sparrow has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may have her young– a place near your altar, O LORD Almighty, my King and my God. 4 Blessed are those who dwell in your house; they are ever praising you. 5 Blessed are those whose strength is in you, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage. 6 As they pass through the Valley of Baca, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools. 7 They go from strength to strength, till each appears before God in Zion.

July 28, 2011 by westportexperiment The Church frequently gets its axiology – its theory of value – dead wrong. To value is fundamentally human. It is instinctive and inescapable, a testament to the fact that man is the offspring of God. But when the Church fails to discern between the values of “the present evil world” and her Lord, it has just plain sold the farm. A Church that doesn’t defend its axiological borders (God’s rather) has in effect seceded to the enemy. And so she comes under Christ’s condemnation, “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15).

I loved your note especially the quote of Jesus peace be upon him. Quran 68:8-9 also says something similar that men of the world want the devout to compromise and lean towards them so that they may esteem them in return. so, God tells the true believers not to follow or obey the deniers of truth . Tafsir Jalalayn: They desire, they yearn, that you should be pliable, [that] you should yield to them, so that they may be pliable [towards you], [so that] they may yield to you . Tafsir Ibn Abbas They wish that you agree with them so that they agree with you and that you flatter them so that they would flatter you. Muhammad Asad: They would like thee to be soft [with them], so that they might be soft [with thee]. They would like thee to be conciliatory in the matter of ethical principles and moral valuations, whereupon they would reciprocate and desist from actively opposing thee.

So,the idea of offspring of God is not Abrahamic but a pre-Abrahamic foreign and worldly idea, because Bible in Numbers says God is not a man. Bible in Acts calls Jesus peace be upon him the Servant of God ( Ebed in hebrew, Abdullah in Arabic)