by Ghassan Kadi
I will again reiterate, in this very first sentence, that Islam is a religion of wisdom and peace. But this same approach did not stop critics in the past from throwing accusations that I was insulting Islam and the Holy Quran, and I am certain that similar accusations will be made now.
In reality however, those who are insulting Islam the most are the Muslims who commit violence in its name, and the other Muslims who are refusing to show how and where the Quran refutes and prohibits violence.
If we opt to be explicit here, and we should, the first group are the “takfiri” Jihadi fighters who belong to a myriad of organizations, and the second group are the mainstream Muslims, and their clerics, who are either unable or unwilling to challenge the Daesh doctrine, or both.
For let us be clear. The mainstream Muslim theology, that of both Sunnis and Shia, and that of Wahhabism, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, the Muslim Brotherhood and Daesh are all based on exactly the same misinterpretations of the Holy Quran.
The only difference between the various mainstream branches and institutions is in the application. Wahhabis and Daesh put this theology into practice by making it the law of the land; and they enact it, to the letter. Other “milder” schools of mainstream Islam do not do so, but yet believe in the same distorted understandings of Jihad, Fateh and Shahada; and these are the main culprits in the Islam-turned-wrong-turned-terrorist syndrome.
And here we must fair and make a clear distinction between the radical Muslims, and those who are not, because there is absolutely no offense here meant to the benign peace-loving Muslims wo do not and will not accept the implement the draconian laws of Wahhabism and Daesh.
These “moderate” Muslims are in fact the over whelming majority. They must be sick and tired to see themselves being put by Muslims haters in the same basket as that of Daesh. This critique is not to be seen as it is made against them, but against the ideology that has been passed on to them by their forefathers. In saying this, I also know that no matter how hard I try in drawing the distinction between ideology and individuals, I will also be accused of insulting all Muslims.
On another count, Daesh seems bound to receive a good whacking and massive military defeat in both Syria and Iraq, but it seems to be on the rise in Libya and the EU. It is clearly an ever-moving beast that can germinate anywhere anytime. All it needs is the presence of the doctrine that feeds it. Sponsors come next.
There is little point burying heads in the sand in hope and/or pretense that this is not the stark reality.
To fight Daesh militarily is one thing, therefore, and to fight it ideologically is something else.
There is a moral imperative on those who want to fight Daesh militarily. In theory, they need to be able to demonstrate that their own history and actions are more humane. The unprecedented brutality of Daesh however has perhaps dropped this requirement. Anyone and any military power can fight Daesh militarily if it wishes to do so, just. In more ways than one, this is “acceptable” to some degree, and for as long as the fight sticks to the objective of targeting Daesh and only Daesh, and this was why the Syrian Government gave a tacit support to its mortal enemy, the West, when the decision was made to hit Daesh back in September 2014 and long before the Russian intervention.
But to fight Daesh ideologically, morality stipulates that no one has the right to do so unless he has the philosophical and moral upper ground that is capable of providing an antithesis.
If the Daesh theology were to be challenged, many cans of worms will be opened, and not just one, and not at all necessarily chronologically in accordance with the order below.
One can of worms will come from well-intentioned protagonists of freedom of worship and expression. This group of people is mostly comprised of idealistic Western activists. By and large, they mean well but they have no idea at all as to who they are defending when they defend mosques that are preaching hatred and generating the breed of bombers and mass murderers that the EU has recently seen.
Another one will come from ultra-right wing Neo-Nazis. These people will capitalise on the anti-Muslim sentiment. They will see it as a tool to serve their objectives, and this is already happening in the EU. Conservative groups are having a surge in their popularity.
A third one will come from Evangelical and Christian preachers who will see in this an opportunity to prove that Christianity is better than Islam. Evangelists are in fact already making inroads into Syria as well as other regions in the hope of signing up new recruits. They will cloak themselves in the guise of Syrian supporters and talk their way into the minds of unsuspecting followers. The irony here is that some of them have a history in being Christian-Zionists, who suddenly switched their support and devotion from Israel to Syria.
Even Shia Muslims will open their own can of worms and proclaim that they are “the real Muslims” who have properly interpreted the Holy Quran and who follow its message. They will, and already have, brought to the forefront some ancient Sunni-Shia debate points, all in the attempt of showing that their own understanding is based on the proper message that has been passed on by Ahl Al-Beit (ie the People of the House, or in other words the descendent of Mohamed PBUH), as against the message that was distorted by his Sahaba (companions) who founded Sunni Islam. But in reality, the misinterpretations that lend themselves to violence are common to both Sunnis and Shia.
And no doubt we should never forget the can of worms of Western hypocrisy. This hypocrisy has shown its face on many occasions recently. The worst was perhaps in the appearance of Netanyahu in Paris marching with protesters after the Charlie Hebdo massacre. And to exacerbate the hypocrisy, who was walking right behind him? None but PA leader Mahmoud Abbas, but that’s another story.
And this is not to absolve from the hypocrisy the NATO member nations from their “hostility” towards Daesh on one hand, and helping it come to fruition and continuing to feed it and fight the only ones who are fighting it on the other hand.
The last can of worms will come from Muslim Sunnis who do not like Daesh and who believe that Daesh is giving Sunni Islam a very foul and tainted image. They will argue that any attempts to put any form of blame on mainstream Islam is out of line. They will continue to reiterate that the Daesh ideology does not represent Islam, and it doesn’t, but they will fall short of saying what real Islam is; because they do not know what real Islam is.
The above cans of worms, or simply obstacles, are not hypothetical at all, as every time the subject of understanding the true nature of Daesh and the doctrine that underpins it is mentioned, all of the above surfaces in one way or another.
For as long as the above obstacles are in the way, the subject of challenging the Daesh ideology cannot be resolved, let alone discussed, and not even mentioned from a realistic perspective.
If we were to honestly dissect and elaborate the essence of those obstacles in a manner that gives us clues as how to eliminate them and get them out of the way, we will clearly reach the following simple conclusions:
- The West: The West does not have the moral upper ground needed for thwarting the Daesh ideology. It does not have either an antithesis to confront Daesh with, nor an ability to prove that Daesh does not represent real Islam, as it (ie the West) keeps regurgitating.
- The Pro-Freedom Activists: As this argument is neither about the funding of Daesh nor about manipulating it to fight the dirty war of the Empire, as instead it is about the specific ideology that gives Daesh and its sponsors the momentum needed for recruitment, the idealists do not distinguish between the two. When one tries to educate them, they shower him with insults and accusations of Neo-Nazism and Islamophobia. Personally, I haven’t been able to make a single breakthrough in the minds of those people despite many articles I have written, and despite public and private discussions. Those people claim to be progressive forward thinkers, but they are stuck in their mental constructs more than KKK members are, with the difference that they veil their views with glossy humane and attractive slogans that are at total odds with reality and rationality. We need to reach the conclusion that these activists are not in a position to partake in any rational resolution to the Daesh issue.
- Russia: Whilst Russia has thus far provided the biggest military package to fight Daesh with, it has not made any representation that it endeavors to challenge the Daesh ideology per se. Long gone are the days of the USSR when Marxism was a “religion” of its own, and right now, even if Russia opts to challenge the doctrine of Daesh, what would it do it with? In summary, the Russian intervention in the war against Daesh is merely military, and should stay as such.
- Evangelists: Western Evangelists who are riding on the bandwagon of Islamophobia and sheer hatred towards Islam are the best example of those who see the speck of dust in the eye of others but refuse to see the log in their own eye. For them to use the rise of Daesh as an opportunity is a cheap ploy indeed. They should try to get a better understanding of Christianity instead. Once again, the inclusion of this group of people in the debate against the Daesh ideology is totally inappropriate to say the least.
- Shia: Ever since the split happened in Islam and two sects were formed, Sunnis and Shia, as mentioned above, the Shia claimed to have the spiritual upper hand in understanding Islam and accused the Sunni clerics of perpetuating the false message that was passed by Mohamed’s followers (Sahaba). And whilst both sects differ on a number of issues, in as far as the matters that are pertinent to the application of the law of Sharia and the understandings of the concepts of Jihad, Fateh and Shahada, there is virtually no difference at all. What is important to note is that it is the misunderstanding of those particular concepts what gives rise to violence in the name of Islam. If this violence is now perpetrated by Sunnis, in the future it can become one perpetrated by Shia. There is no guarantee that it won’t. Shia and Shiite theology are therefore in the same basket as Sunni theology and are incapable of providing an antithesis to confront Daesh with.
- Sunnis: The above elimination process, as it were, leaves us with Muslims in general and Sunnis in particular. In reality, if Muslims, especially Sunnis are unable to understand their religion properly, be able to clearly see the failings of the archaic interpretations they inherited from their forefathers, then no one can
The problem is that the Quran has not been properly interpreted; not even in Arabic. So where can one find a different reading of the Holy Quran? A reading that enables them to have a look at the word of the Quran from a perspective that does not and cannot give rise to Daesh-like ideologies? Some may legitimately ask. They can try this link, but it is not one that is “recognized”. But of course it is entirely up to them to discern if it makes sense or not: http://www.circleofbeauty.org/page_2.html
Muslim scholars, Sunni and Shia, will probably disagree with the reading given in the Circle Of Beauty page, but they have an onus to look, and if they disagree, they also have the onus to present their own argument as to why they disagree.
In the end, we go back to where we started. As far as violence in religion is concerned, all Abrahamic religious institutions are equally culpable. Wars have been fought in the name of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. To single out Islam and have it branded as a religion that advocates violence is wrong, especially when such a statement is made to further personal and religious gains of Islam haters.
Yes, there is a huge onus on Muslims to understand Islam and put it into practice. No one else can but them. But before one criticizes Daesh or Islam, he has to look deep inside and see the log in his own eye. For a thesis that is based on ignorance and evil to be confronted, it needs an antithesis that is based on knowledge.
“In reality however, those who are insulting Islam the most are the Muslims who commit violence in its name, and the other Muslims who are refusing to show how and where the Quran refutes and prohibits violence”.
Show me where the Qur’an preached violence and I will show you where it refutes and prohibits violence.
I would never understand why should somebody kill in the name of his religion or hate for the same reason.Muslim versus Muslim,Christian versus Christian,Christian versus Christian,or any religion against other.And all this in the name of the same God.Just a remark here : from time to time are people of different religions and sects knocking at my door and asking me to join their religion.
But never,ever came a single Jew far that matter.It seems,they don’t want to conquer the world in this way by religion.You tell me why ?
“For let us be clear. The mainstream Muslim theology, that of both Sunnis and Shia, and that of Wahhabism, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, the Muslim Brotherhood and Daesh are all based on exactly the same misinterpretations of the Holy Quran”.
You see the problem here? How could someone sit somewhere in front of a computer and type that all Muslims have the same belief but different practices and at the same time say that Muslims have different misinterpretation of the Qur’an? So according to you most Muslims agree with Daesh but not all Muslims would do what Daesh are doing? And those Muslims who do not agree with what Daesh are doing are none mainstream Muslims?
Look Kadi bro, if you really were inspired by the Saker then I say you come out straight and say you hate Muslims and attack Muslims completely and stop trying to lie. At least The Saker is always 100% real and doesn’t give excuses and he says it how he sees it.
Sir islam is not even a religion but a war manifest to concur the world. Just as Muhammad demanded total submission and obedience of the people and lands he concurred 1300 hundred years ago the muslims continue to follow in those footsteps..Let them all die in the name of allah and maybe the world will find some peace..
“Verily the voice of the ass is the ugliest of voices”
If you want peace, pray God gives Putin the divine order to nuke America to ashes. The world will know peace the day America seizes to exist.
God, who is the highest Good, wills no evil, and therefore wills no acts of villany–the resort to nuclear weapons as an agressor is villany of the lowest kind.
let all people of the earth die and there will be peace. great
That is a most ugly and dishonest approach you are taking. Instead of trying to put words in Ghassan Kadihis’ mouth why don’t you read what he actually provided. And I mean read it carefully. Surely, I’m not asking for much and it isn’t that difficult to do. If you concentrate you ought to be able to comprehend what he is getting at. Just put the prejudice and biases away for a moment and focus upon what he actually writes, rather than what your imagination conjures up.
This is your belief/opinion and you are entitled to it. You have spoken your mind but that doesn’t make what you said true. Christianity demands that we give our lives to Christ too. Both religions demands us and promises heaven in return. Religion is preached not forced because we all have the right to believe or not. Islam is against forcing religion on people. I do not know much about Christianity but I’m sure it those not support forced faith. This is my belief and opinion too and I am entitled to it. We all cannot have the same beliefs and no one should try to pretend that they know better than everyone else because where someone’s knowledge stops is where another person’s knowledge starts. Saying all Muslims are the reason why Daesh is Daesh is like saying all Russians were the cause of their own problems in the 90s. Islam is not a country or countries put themselves in charge of Islam, it is very clear that they did so for their own reasons.
@Christianity demands that we give our lives to Christ
But Christianity does not ask to give our lives killing the unbelievers.
(Quran (4:95): “Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward ”
(Quran (2:191-193): “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.).
Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
(Quran (8:39) – “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah”
Sayings of Imam Ali (A.S.)
His Last Will and Testament
Imam Ali’s (AS) last will to his sons Imam Hasan (AS) and Imam Hussain (AS) following a fatal blow on his head during morning prayers by Ibn Muljim (A Kharijite):
My advice to you is to be conscious of Allah and steadfast in your religion. Do not yearn for the world, and do not be seduced by it. Do not resent anything you have missed in it. Proclaim the truth; work for the next world. Oppose the oppressor and support the oppressed.
I advise you, and all my children, my relatives, and whosoever receives this message, to be conscious of Allah, to remove your differences, and to strengthen your ties. I heard your grandfather, peace be upon him, say: “Reconciliation of your differences is more worthy than all prayers and all fasting.”
Fear Allah in matters concerning orphans. Attend to their nutrition and do not forget their interests in the middle of yours.
Fear Allah in your relations with your neighbors. Your Prophet often recommended them to you, so much so that we thought he would give them a share in inheritance.
Remain attached to the Quran. Nobody should surpass you in being intent on it, or more sincere in implementing it.
Fear Allah in relation to your prayers. It is the pillar of your religion.
Fear Allah in relation to His House; do not abandon it as long as you live. If you should do that you would abandon your dignity.
Persist in jihad in the cause of Allah, with your money, your souls, and your tongue.
Maintain communication and exchange of opinion among yourselves. Beware of disunity and enmity. Do not desist from promoting good deeds and cautioning against bad ones. Should you do that, the worst among you would be your leaders, and you will call upon Allah without response.
O Children of Abdul Muttalib! Do not shed the blood of Muslims under the banner: The Imam has been assassinated! Only the assassin should be condemned to death.
If I die of this stroke of his, kill him with one similar stroke. Do not mutilate him! I have heard the Prophet, peace be upon him, say: “Mutilate not even a rabid dog.”
Source: Nahjul Balagha
In the 40th year of Hijri, in the early hours of the morning of 19th Ramadhan, Imam Ali (AS) was struck with a poisoned sword by the Kharijite Ibn Muljim (may the curse of Allah be upon him) while leading prayers in the Masjid of Kufa. He was martyred on the 21st day of Ramadhan 40 A.H. and buried in Najaf-ul-Ashraf. He was born in the House of Allah, the Ka’ba, and martyred in the House of Allah, Masjid-e-Kufa. The Lion of Allah, the most brave and gentle Muslim after the Holy Prophet (pbuh&hf) himself, began his glorious life with devotion to Allah and His Messenger, and ended it in the service of Islam.
“And do not speak of those who are slain in the the Way of Allah as dead; nay, they are alive, but you perceive not.” Qur’an 2:154
To selectively quote the Qur’an to peddle an underhand or distorted interpretation of its verses is a tragic manifestation of intellectual bankruptcy.
Studying the Qur’an holistically clearly indicates that fighting is only commanded against those who wage provocative unjustified warfare. Fighting the oppressors (whether they claim to be Muslims or non-Muslims) who spread great corruption and evil on the Earth is an intrinsic part of Islam’s ethos of exercising a zero tolerance for injustice.
There are multitudes of verses in the Qur’an which instruct the respect of the life and property etc of people (including non-Muslims) who do not engage in unbridled corruption and oppression in the land.
The Qur’an gives no right to fight people just because they hold a belief that is in contradiction to the monotheistic ideology of Islam. As Allah (Most High) states in Chapter 2, verse 256 of the Qur’an: “There is no compulsion in religion…”. Judgement on people’s belief inclinations is left entirely to Almighty Allah who will judge on the matter in the Hereafter/Life after death in this earthly domain.
Salam Brother Umar,
Excellent post. You have highlighted two excellent points of Islam and I want to add my 2 cents.
1. The Central Theme of the Holy Quran is that Man is an Oppressor. He/she oppresses their own loved ones, and one doesn’t have to a Ruler to be an Oppressor. The Tree didn’t have any value, but it was God’s Command to Adam and Eve, not to approach The Tree least you become Oppressors. They both did and God’s in His Infinite Mercy forgave them. Man is unjust and Only God is Just.
2. In All Religions, God is considered Love, Mercy, Merciful, Benevolent and so forth. But when it comes to Heaven, then every little group claim that they are the ones who will go to Heaven and no one else. Thus, claiming the Ownership of not only The Heaven but God Himself. All these attributes of God being Love, Mercy, Merciful, Benevolent and so forth are thrown out of the Window.
In my opinion, Islam originated from educationally backward region. It is very easy for an educationally advanced nation like USA to hijack Islam through Islamic leaders in the backward region. I call it the neon colonization of Islam by the West through the Sauds for the West. Iran has its own branch of Islam too for Iran, through Iran.
A Great Book on Islam!
Shaykh Imran Hosein
“As matters stand in the Muslim world today, it is the decline of religious leadership from the Islamic standard in a serious measure that constitutes a major cause of its inability with regard to its emergence from the abyss into which it has been descending since some time. The remedy for the situation is obvious.” – Fazlur Rahman Ansari, ‘The Qur’anic Foundations and Structure of Muslim Society’.
The Quranic Foundations and Structure of Muslim Society (in two volumes) was written by the distinguished Islamic scholar and Sufi Shaikh, Maulana Dr. Muhammad Fadlur Rahman Ansari (1914-1974), and was first published in Pakistan in 1973 just a few months before his death in 1974. It is not only a masterpiece of modern Islamic scholarship, but it also courageously identifies serious deficiencies in contemporary Islamic scholarship as one of the major causes of the decline of the Muslim world. The author of the book, who holds a doctorate in philosophy, was a graduate of Aligarh Muslim University, India, where he studied philosophy and religion. He derived his Islamic philosophical and spiritual thought from the outstanding Islamic scholar, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, as well as from his spiritual mentor, Maulana Abdul Aleem Siddiqui, and the great teacher who taught him Islam at the Aligarh Muslim University, Professor Syed Sulaiman Ashraf.
Dr. Iqbal had made a significant call, in a series of public lectures delivered in the 1930’s, for the “reconstruction of religious thought in Islam”. “The Qur’anic Foundations and Structure of Muslim Society” was, in part, Maulana Ansari’s PhD thesis, and it was perhaps the most outstanding contribution to Islamic scholarship by any of the students of Iqbal. It also represented a significant response to Iqbal’s call for that ‘reconstruction of religious thought’. Maulana disclosed that Iqbal was himself the spiritual guide who guided him to the methodology with which he was able to pursue a sustained study of the Qur’an. It was that study which resulted in the production of this great work.
Even while he responded to Iqbal’s call, Maulana did not agree that Islamic religious thought was so defective that it had to be reconstructed, and he attempted no such thing in this, his magnum opus. His view was that Islam had to be rearticulated in the context of the awesome challenges posed by the modern thought that originated from modern western civilisation. The world of religion, in general, and the Muslim world in particular, was subjected to cleverly formulated attacks on its integrity, and it was mainly because the scholars of Islam had so far failed to respond authentically and appropriately to those attacks that Muslim society was in a state of confusion, dangerous decline and disarray.
The rest of the article here:
The book recommended by Sh. Imran Hosein must be read with discernment. For example, it starts out thus:
“The modern man with his philosophies of criticism and
Scientific specialism finds himself in a strange predicament. His
Naturalism has given him an unprecedented control over the forces of
nature, but has robbed him of faith in his own future. It is strange how
the same idea affects different cultures differently.”
This can be taken without reservation.
“The formulation of the theory of evolution in the world of Islam brought into being
Rumi’s tremendous enthusiasm for the biological future of man.”
This, notion, however is wrong. As a metaphysician and contemplative of the highest order, Rumi by no means intended here a meditation on man’s “biological future.” The idea is in fact deeply mistaken and even heretical. According to this way of thinking, Jesus and Muhammad, Lao Tse and Buddha, are just half-way houses to a future “superman,” which is devilish nonsense. In reality, what is in question here is not Darwinism, but the vision of the cosmos as God’s Self-revelation. From the standpoint of traditional metaphysics the Darwinian notion of macro-evolution is metaphysically impossible, given that the archetypes–the Divine “Ideas” or pure Possibilities–of all things are–as Rumi affirms–immutably comprised in the Divine Unity.
See for example:
William Chittick–“The Self-Disclosure of God: Principles of Ibn al-‘Arabi’s Cosmology”
–“The Sufi Doctrine of Rumi”
Titus Burckhardt–“Introduction to Sufi Doctrine
Toshihiko Izutsu–“Sufism and Taoism.”
Islam’s Record of Tolerance
The leading British scholar of Islam of his generation, Sir Hamilton Gibb, wrote in 1932:
Islam possesses a magnificent tradition of
inter-racial understanding and co-operation. No other society has such a record of success
in uniting, in an equality of status, of
opportunity, and of endeavour, so many and so various races of humanity.
Multiple Identities of the Middle East, 1998
Pluralism is part of the holy law of Islam, and
these rules are on many points detailed and
specific. Unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam squarely confronts the problem of
religious tolerance … For Muslims, the
treatment of the religious other is not a matter of opinion or choice, of changing
interpretations and judgments according to
circumstances. It rests on scriptural and legal texts, that is to say, for Muslims, on holy writ and sacred law.
Islam, Europe and Empire (1966)
“The notion of toleration in Christendom was borrowed from Muslim practice.”
John Locke:”Letter Concerning Toleration”, 1689: Christian denominations were free to enact their specific forms of Christian worship if they lived in the Muslim Ottoman Empire, but not if they lived in certain parts of Christian Europe. So: “Would the Turks not silently stand by and
laugh to see with what inhuman cruelty Christians thus rage against Christians?”
The Holy Qur’an and the Inescapability of Religious Tolerance
Question 1:What is your creed; what do you believe?
The Messenger believes in that which has been revealed unto him
from his Lord, and [so do] the believers. Every one believes in God
and His angels and His scriptures and His Messengers—we make no distinction between any of His Messengers.
25 Prophets mentioned in the Qur’an; 124,000 according to the Prophet.
According to your faith, who is saved?
Truly those who believe, and the Jews, and the
Christians, and the Sabeans—whoever believes in God and the Last Day and performs virtuous
deeds—surely their reward is with their Lord,
and no fear shall come upon them, neither shall they grieve.
Question 3:Why is there a diversity of faiths?
For each We have appointed a Law (shirʿa) and a
Way (minhāj). Had God willed, He could have made you one community (umma). But that He might try you by that which He hath given you [He has made you as you are]. So vie with one another in good works. Unto God you will all return, and He will inform you of that about which you differed.
Question 4:What is the quintessence of the religious message?
And We sent no Messenger before you but that We inspired him [saying]:There is no God except Me, so worship Me.
Question 5:To whom is this essential message addressed?
The whole of humanity:
For every umma there is a Messenger.
Question 6:What is the purpose of warfare in your faith?
Permission [to fight] is given to those who are being fought, for they have been wronged. Had God not driven back some by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques—wherein the name of God is much invoked—would assuredly have been destroyed .
See “The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World,” by John Andrew Morrow.
Answer me one simple question ( I have tried several times on other posts to get an answer to no avail )
Did Mohammed and his followers kill to further his religious mission ? I am not really interested in long winding accounts of mistranslations, altered script etc. I am just looking for a simple answer. Did Mohammed and his followers kill to further his religious cause ?
For information, including a bibliography, on a paragon of the authentic Islamic spirit and personality, see the Wikipedia article on the Emir Abd el-Kader:
“Abdelkader El Djezairi”
A hand full of 1975 college graduate students were mentored by a rebel Jesuit instructor over a 12 year period.. We were called by this instructor his Doubting Thomas group. During our first meeting he said for us to remember at all times, almost everything you think you know is a partial truth, a lie by omission, a diversion from truth or a plain lie.
In regard to this article we were told there are many differences between the Muslims that follow the Quran of Mecca opposed to Medina.
Then there were also the many differences between the Orthodox Christian (first Christians) teachings compared to the Church of Rome and their editors.
Just saying be careful of what you think you know.
Re: “in regard to this article we were told there are many differences between the Muslims that follow the Quran of Mecca opposed to Medina.”
I respectfully suggest you follow your advice and first really educate yourself regarding the subject matter. I can see from your remark that as regards the Quran and Islam you lack sufficient education. Regrettably, we live in a society of poorly educated but very opinionated individuals.
Some time ago, a reader posted a very high-quality selected bibliography, which I reproduce here:
What Does Islam Mean in Today’s World?: Religion, Politics, Spirituality–William Stoddart
Islam and the Destiny of Man–Charles Le Gai Eaton
Vision of Islam (Visions of Reality)–Sachiko Murata
Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources–Martin Lings (Abu Bakr Siraj ad-Din)
The Book of Hadith: Sayings of the Prophet Muhammad from the Mishkat al Masabih–Charles Le Gai Eaton
The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary–Seyyed Hossein Nasr
Kashf al-Asrar: The Unveiling of the Mysteries (Great Commentaries of the Holy Qur’an)– William C. Chittick
Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s Legact–Jonathan A.C. Brown
Islam, Fundamentalism & the Betrayal of Tradition, Revised–edited by Joseph E. B. Lumbard
Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal Of Its Religious And Ideological Foundations–Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi
Recollecting the Spirit of Jihad–http://www.amaana.org/ikhwan/rezajihad.htm
Do Muslims and Christians Believe in the same God?–http://faith.yale.edu/sites/default/files/shah-kazemi_final_paper_0.pdf
Emir Abd el-Kader: Hero and Saint of Islam–Ahmed Bouyerdene
A relevant excerpt from the book “Emir Abd el-Kader: Hero and Saint of Islam”
As a man of jihad, he [the Emir Abd-el Kader] was also a man of ijtihad–the effort of reflection and adaptation in the face of the challenges encountered in the contingent world. In the sphere of religion, he had a rational and judicious approach towards tradition. By clarifying it through a living reflection, nourished by the observation of the realities of his time, he prevented it from being transformed into a collection of rigid and stale precepts…the Emir asserted the need for the religious law to adapt to the present requirements of the community in which it was to be applied. Already during the jihad [referring to his battles against the French for the liberation of Algeria], and in the most eloquent way possible during his captivity and stays in France, he himself offered the example of such adaptation. Confronted with cultural and religious realties that clashed radically with those of his society, he was able to sacrifice certain cultural customs in the name of usages which he deemed superior. This suppleness and openness of mind were also that of a mind resolutely turned towards modernity, interested in the technical progress issuing from Europe, and lending his support to the leading projects of his age.
During the course of the first centuries of the Muslim expansion, the development of ijtihad had facilitated the diffusion and establishment of Islam in heterogeneous societies. The Muslim assimilated a culture, a language, and he set aside only those habits which manifestly failed to comply with the divine Law. Facts and customs which were not explicitly dealt with in the religious corpus, as well as the different aspect of law, were subjected to ijtihad. The effort of reflection and interpretation were not limited to the domains of jurisprudence, but extended to all spheres of society. Thus, Muslim civilization experienced its full expansion in the flowering of an exceptional intellectual, political and spiritual diversity. The end of ijtihad, the beginning of an intellectual decadence of the Muslim world, has generally been fixed around the tenth century, and was due in great part to the effort of interpretation becoming confined to the juridical sphere alone, thereby provoking a rise in the power of the doctors of the Law. This phenomenon soon gave rise to a way of thinking that was overly homogeneous, preventing any renewal of religious interpretation, all innovation being deemed heretical (bid’a). This sclerosis of Islamic culture became aggravated as time went on. During the Ottoman period, increased control of the religious sphere by the political further impeded the revivification of the religious and profane sciences called for by reformist groups. In the nineteenth century, in a general way, self-absorption and the rejection of new ideas became a norm in the juridical milieus, depriving Muslim society of all reflection on the challenges of the century.
Apparently, the Emir very early distanced himself from the old juridicism. Further affirmed during his exile in Damascus, this sensibility was already clearly expressed in Reminder to the Intelligent, Warning to the Indifferent, written in 1855 in Bursa, where he affirms the necessity of adapting religious prescriptions to the times and to the cultural surroundings. With the exception of the immutable principles of Islam–the affirmation of the Divine Unity and the acts of Worship–everything can be the object of a reinterpretation and adaptation: in his Lettre aux Français, he writes that it is possible to “judge the wisdom of a given measure of abrogation and its usefulness by taking into consideration the extent to which the religious law serves the interests of God’s servants…It is possible for these temporal interests to change, and this change similarly affects the law in question…The religious laws dictated by the prophets vary in accordance with the juridical considerations which inspired them, for men’s interests change during the course of centuries, so that every judgment is just only in relation to the interests of the people of the age in which it was promulgated, that is to say, taking into account the true needs of man, the sole object of the prophetic message.” Nourished by the experience of temporal and religious power, the thought of Abd el-Kader takes up the main themes and the arguments of the reformers of religious thought. On the one hand, the shari’ah was established by the Koran and the Sunna of the Prophet, and on the other by the effort of reflection and interpretation. Ijtihad is precisely the tool serving to harmonize the traditional religious precepts with the needs of the time, even abrogating those which the evolution of society had rendered obsolete. In its essence, the objective of the divine Law is not to subjugate man, but to serve him by progressively leading him towards a full expansion of his natural and spiritual faculties. Reminder to the Intelligent, Warning to the Indifferent, as we have already emphasized, is a tribute to discursive reason. Abd el-Kader places the effort of reflection and of the critical mind at the heart of the revivification of religious thought, and condemns “the unthinking adoption of established opinions.” Those who are content with blind imitation cannot arrive at the truth owing to “beliefs anchored in their souls, and upon which their minds are fixated…Those who call people to imitation pure and simple by excluding the participation of the mind are ignorant.” Implicitly, the emir has in view the traditionalist ulemas who exhort people to reject all that is able to call into question a Law conceived as intangible. “The harm that can be dealt to laws of religious origin is, alas, further provoked by those who wish to assure their triumph by means which are appropriate only for those whom they are combating.” Thus, Abd el-Kader clearly positions himself as a mujtahid, an adept of ijtihad. But if religion needs reason in order not to dessicate, at same time he warns the French, to whom the text is directed, that reason without the “lights of divine aid” also leads to an impasse. As a proponent of the via media, he calls for a balanced attitude: “Beware of becoming party to one or the other of these two groups, but take what is good from the one and from the other.”
Noteworthy is the key distinction between cultural customs and the immutable principles of the religion, namely, the Two-fold Testimony of Faith, and the rest of the “Arkan ad-Din”–the “Pillars” of Islam. Another crucial teaching is the traditional division of the religion: Imam, Islam, Ihasan.
There is this famous Hadith from the “40 Hadith of Imam an-Nawawi”:
“While we were one day sitting with the Messenger of God (blessings and 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 facing the Prophet (peace be upon him), rested his knees against his knees and placed his palms on 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 divinity but God alone and that Muhammad is His Messenger, pay the Zakah (tithe), fast during Ramadan, and perform Hajj to the House (pilgrimmage to Mecca), 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 God) answered, “It is that you believe in God and His angels and His Books (Revelations) and His Messengers and in the Last Day, and in qadar (destiny and providence), 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 God) answered, “It is that you should adore God as though you were seeing Him, for if you cannot see Him, He nonetheless sees you.”
He said, “Inform me about the Hour.” He (the Messenger of God) 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 off. I waited a while, and then he (the Messenger of God) said, “O Umar, do you know who that questioner was?” I replied, “God and His Messenger know best.” He said, “That was Jibril (the Archangel Gabriel). He came to teach you your religion.”
My typo above: “Ihasan” should be “Ihsan.”
One of the major quandaries of Islam is the identity of “Jibril”.
Is he the same who announces the Vergin Mary that: “Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.’ ‘How will this be,’ Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin?’ The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.’”
with the one who tells Mahomed that :
“Never has God begotten a son, nor is there any other god besides Him. Were this otherwise, each god would govern his own creation, each holding himself above the other. Exalted be God above their falsehoods! (Qur’an 23:9″1),
“They do blaspheme who say: “God is Christ the son of Mary.” They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a trinity: for there is no God except one God Allah. If they do not desist from their word of blasphemy, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. Christ the son of Mary was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him.” (Sura 5:72-73, 5:75) ?
It amuses me but, also is worrying to see these comments that tell my husband, of all people, that he knows nothing about Islam. These responses are so telling about the problem Islam faces in facing up to reality and reforming. Ghassan grew up witnessing many struggles in his city and region and also the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, starting with a non-militant version that his uncle introduced to the Levant from Egypt. His uncle can be best described as the intellectual and spiritual father of the Levantine Muslim Brotherhood but, he never advocated violence. His father as a great secularist and this uncle struggled with each other throughout their lives. There were countless debates which involved very high up clerics and my husband has endeavoured all his life to study the Quran and to see the beauty behind the misunderstood theology. I consider him of absolutely superior ability to take on any highly qualified cleric and perhaps it is time for this.
Perhaps it is better to step back a bit and understand religion rather than trying to convince others of certain interpretations of religious text.
You say Ghassan’s uncle and father argued/debated over this throughout their lives and I take it neither converted the other to his views.
As I argued with Ghassan in his last articles on this subject, the sudden rise of extremist Islam in the last few decades is due to state backing for geopolitical ends.
Without state backing it would still be around but a much lower level and easily managed. When groups like al Qaeda and ISIS and others look successful, people with a grievance real or imagined will join.
A very long term job to change a religion if at all possible, whereas it is perhaps more pragmatic to remove state backing and destroy those that are a danger to others.
I think removing state backing of the extremist groups would be a pre-requisite to anything else.
Wahhabi as a state religion? It’s like a swamp that needs to be drained or otherwise destroyed to stop it exporting their brand of religion.
Salam Sister Intibah,
I don’t know why I was thinking that your were Ghassan’s sister, but now I am sure that both Ghassan and you are not Muslims. According to the Holy Quran, a married woman doesn’t take the name of her husband’s family by giving up her birth right. It is nothing to do with feminism, but has to do with Islam and Holy Quran.
You give the impression that Ghassan is a Muslim due to his uncle being a Muslim. I have said Salam, many a times to Ghassan but he has never replied my Salam. It is must in both Muslim and Judaism religion to reply Salam with Salam. Basically, by not replying back in Salam, it takes one out of the fold. The value of Salam is well known in Islam and that even your enemy greats you with Salam, you must answer his/her Salam.
But who is Ghassan preaching to on this blog? Guest article after Guest article. There are very few Muslims on this blog, and most of them don’t know Arabic. One of Ghassan’s requirement is knowing Arabic Language.
Ghassan’s double speak of the Holy Quran and not bringing any proof when asked is well established. Then he makes the further claim that no one took his challenge.
Why doesn’t Ghassan take his challenge to Arabic Blogs and Forums. To Muslims’ Blog and Forum, both Sunni and Shia. What is he trying to gain here?
Post after post, Ghassan has insulted and demeaned me personally. If you want to, I can quote them all in here?
Mohamed… who are you to say who is a Musllim or not. A genuine Muslim never says they are a Shia or Sunni Muslim, they just say “Muslim”. That shows your hypocrisy. And your comment here shows the problem with people like you who just follow rituals and don’t use their intellect or divinely guided intuition. This is the big, big problem and why things have got to where they have got.
In Ghassan’s first article where he asked for the “definition challenge debate”, you said to Ghassan: “..you started your article by insulting Islam…” when in fact Ghassan started by praising the Quran and saying that nothing in it calls for violence and that those who misunderstand the Quran call for violence.
So why would anyone want to respond to such silliness? I think you disqualified yourself from any serious and genuine debate.
It is people like you who are hiding their heads in the sand and saying there is no problem with the misinterpretation of the Quran and, to add to this,you then go praising King Salman as if he is some sort of saviour!
Who wants to have a discussion with you?
Arguing “interpretations” of a religion again instead of standing back and simply looking at religion and who is using it.
No wonder the middle east and MENA is such a mess. The devils playground for empires. Divide and conquer. Child’s play looking at the arguments here.
Peace be unto you, respected sister Intibah.
It is praiseworthy and commendable that you stand in defending the views and thoughts of your husband. He is, after all, (presumably) your imam.
After thorough (believe me) reading of your husband’s article, I feel that everything he says about all others applies also to himself. He suffers from the same „illness“ that he so eagerly „diagnoses“ in all others, strongly suggesting that he is the only one who truly understands islam and the message of the Holy Qur’an. In spite of all the disappointments, frustrations and anger, that is wrong and dangerous. I understand, having read many of his articles, that he is deeply disappointed with the current predicament of the Ummah of Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah Allmighty be upon him, but finding the vent on the orthodox-christian domain is very unlikely to make him any friends among the same Ummah. The same as with Mr. Imran Hosein: „I am the only one that knows……“ You must expect those „..adorned with reason..“ to use it and draw some conclusions. We all have to do something to make a living.
I do not know whether you have sons, but remember Mr. Putin’s convoluted threat and ridicule: “If you want to become a complete Islamic radical and are ready to undergo circumcision, then I invite you to Moscow. We are a multidenominational country. We have specialists in this question as well. I will recommend that he carry out the operation in such a way that after it nothing else will grow.”
Does circumcission make men islamic radicals? You and I know that it is not so, but many, many others think differently, specially if stimulated by their leaders.
Look, dear sister, at those who are the nucleus of Daesh – former secularists no longer needed by their former masters as such! And now they declare takfir against everybody else. Let us remeber what takfir is: „deeming the belief of a muslim to be invalid“!
In the hadith Ibn Umar related that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) said: If a Muslim calls another kafir, then if he is a kafir let it be so; otherwise, he [the caller] is himself a kafir.” (Abu Dawud, Book of Sunna, edition published by Quran Mahal, Karachi, vol. iii, p. 484). So, we should be extremely carefull.
And, as explicitely as possible: „O ye who believe! When ye go abroad in the cause of Allah, investigate carefully, and say not to any one who offers you a salutation: “Thou art none of a believer!” Coveting the perishable goods of this life: with Allah are profits and spoils abundant. Even thus were ye yourselves before, till Allah conferred on you His favours: Therefore carefully investigate. For Allah is well aware of all that ye do.“
(Salutation: As-salamu alaykum!) – whether from a muslim or non-muslim!!!! The Prophet (pbuh) warned that we can not open their hearts to see what is in them!
As-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu!
There appear to be only three major documentable fundamental ways for humans to function both as individuals and collectively-socially:
—1) the way of the “kingdom of heaven” both within and among humans, being through creativity in liberty and peace within oneself and with others, this being the fundamental way taught and exemplified by Lord Jesus the Anointed (Christ);
—2) the way of disciplined furor and/or disciplined fear;
—3) the way of idolatry, the sacrifice of oneself and others for the sake of something given greater value that concrete human well-being, be that a concept of God, or nation, or race,
or money, or whatever else for which humans go so far as to kill and/or die. Note:—the humans are the only species on the planet that will even kill or die for the sake of something that they have constructed purely from their imagination.—These things we say are based on life experience and on studies of the thoughts, words and example of Lord Jesus of Nazareth through the Gospels of Mark, Luke, Matthew and John and other texts of the Holy Bible, the so-called canonical books thereof. Douay-Rheims English translation and King James English translation were used. No special so-called supernatural revelation, angelic visitation and the like are being claimed here, only personal thinking and conclusions, and let others simply judge whether this makes sense or no sense.
More specifically, the way of human functioning, the universal kingdom of heaven within and among persons is a kind of divine grace-energy, notably including multiplication of one’s given talents [Matthew 25:14-30]; the leaven of development [Matthew 12:33]; arising of itself without coercion, freely and spontaneously [Mark 4:26-29]; in reconciliation between human and God, human and human, and within each human [Matthew 18:21-35]; the conciliating motive
underlying [Luke 17:3-4]; worldwide and often operating unawares, even to a degree within unbelieving Pharisees for instance [Luke 17:20-21].—And the best definition of God would be as pronounced by Apostle Paul:—God is (the whole truth) in whom we live and move and have our being, our continuity [Acts 17:27-28].
There is also much mentioned about “dialectics” in various articles. In contrast to the classical sometimes called “Hegelian dialectics” which is often summarized as “thesis” fighting “antithesis” to produce “synthesis”, and then also often mingled with slipshod references to the “unity of opposites”,—we raise the system of “dialectical Christian method” [in Ukrainian “rozmyslovyi khrystianskyi sposib”] where approach to truth is through the details, and at some point in delving into the details one encounters a point or level of the unity of the given opposites. At that point, the opposites become truly concretely the same, and by influencing and controlling that point one can then either decrease or increase the given conflict. For example: various substances and elements show vastly differing and opposite properties, yet upon delving
into the details one finds the major point where they are united, the same, at the level of the electrons, protons, neutrons. By manipulating electrons, protons and neutrons in nuclear reaction, one element can be transformed into another, like opposites being transformed. It would also be fair to say, that the concept of Hegelian dialectic is based on the primacy of conflict, warfare,
whereas the concept of the Christian dialectic, rooted in the ultimate unity of Lord God as the whole truth in which we all live, move and have our continuity (existence), does not require the preëxistence of conflict, that everything must begin with the conflict.
Given that all categories are inaccurate generalities simply because of the way human language is built, the non-material life of the typical human being can be divided into two broad categories which are significant because they are distinguishable empirically. The “non-material life” includes thinking, feeling and consciousness overall. One basic division of this is the part of non-material life that can be directly influenced by certain musical chords. This is essentially the category of emotions, which are influenced directly without any mediation by thinking, like vibration upon vibration, so that hearing certain chords tends to evoke immediate joy and others tend to evoke sadness, and still other music-like vibrations of tone of voice evoke disgust and anger, and so on. The part of non-material life which is not so directly influenced by musical chords can then be called the “intellect”, the analytical thinking part. From our own experience we notice that such a distinction exists, and this distinction is concrete and noticeable.—Most human destructive and evil behavior comes from emotions, of predatory rage and the fear in response to the rage, and in responding to dangers. We also notice what can be called “emotional organisms” or “emotional entities” acting within and among humans, and these entities often show a creepy kind of intelligence, if intelligence is defined as a certain complex-enough level of orderly interaction between the consciousness of an organism and its external environment and also inward between the consciousness of an organism and its internal environment, including the phenomenon of self-awareness.—Application of flexible analytical human intellect by the energy of sufficient willpower to persist stubbornly, that seems to be the only mechanism for defusing the mighty emotional entities based on predatory rage and reactive terror.
Monasticism and asceticism took over the spiritual leadership within Christianity very early, and this has been the first great deviation from the actual example of Lord Jesus and His overall lifestyle as recorded, which would be considered essentially a secular lifestyle by today’s standards of “secular” versus “spiritual” as determined by those monastic and ascetical cadres.
In the Roman Church we have a popular summation of this so-called supremely virtuous Christian life in the book “Imitation of Christ” by Thomas à Kempis, where the virtuous Christian life is to live in imitation of Jesus suffering on the cross, and through denial of all pleasures and the embracing of all forms of suffering, including self-abasement, mortification of the flesh, hatred of the body, etc.. We suspect that Christian Orthodoxy is based on similar
monastic-ascetical teachings as the supposedly supreme superior spiritual and virtuous life
and ethics. But these teachings actually have little if anything to do with the kingdom of heaven within and among humans as taught and shown by Lord Jesus Himself. Monasticism and asceticism seem to essentially belong to the way of functioning through disciplined fury and/or disciplined fear, only the fury and fear are directed primarily against oneself, and because of that
they are made to appear like spiritual and virtuous and superior to the so-called “decadent” ways of selfishness.—That is why monasticism and asceticism are a deviation from the ways of the kingdom of heaven shown through the sayings, thoughts and example of Lord Jesus Himself,
as for instance cited above.
According to Lord Jesus, peace be upon Him, two fundamental systems of human government flow out of the given ways of human functioning described elsewhere. One type of government [we can also use the clearer term “leadership in society”] flows from the way of the kingdom
of heaven. According to the way of the kingdom of heaven, leaders serve the followers whom
they lead rather than lord it over the followers [see Matthew 23:11-12; Mark 9:34, 10:42-44; Luke 22:25-26], and under such a system of rulership as service the average human will have
the best environment to function through that divine grace-energy of creativity in liberty and
inner-outer reconciliation and peace, as per the kingdom of heaven both within and among humans, preached by Lord Jesus.
The distribution of wealth, material riches, generally follows the distribution of social and political power of leadership. The dictators will always be also rich, and their subjects will always also be poor by comparison. There cannot be any true “redistribution of wealth” unless there is also a true redistribution of social and political power. Leadership as lording it over is
the foundation for dictatorship.—Right now, on the global scale, international scale, or even country-level scale, there seems to be no leadership as service, only leadership as lording it over. Leadership as lording it over flows from functioning primarily by rage energies and fear energies, predatory, sadistic, and we think that its basis is spiritual, not really so much greed
for material possessions and profit, but rather getting high on rage like getting high on a
drug. And this is an evil type of spirituality, the feelings of spiritual and moral accomplishment in attacking, terrorizing, torturing and slaughtering, like a true predator, like lions tearing down Cape buffaloes so to speak. Therefore, for significant numbers of the elite persons, knowing that there are people out there rummaging homeless through garbage dumpsters as a contrast actually makes the caviar all the more savory. They like to think that they are robbing others by force and getting away with it. They are simply like the ferocious bullies at school, only now using financial methods to bully others rather than bullying by punching and kicking in a back alley. Yet we suspect that these wicked elite persons are merely a secretive minority, very small in numbers, like the 1% of the proverbial 1%, but very superenergized. Interestingly, we came across information that even the so-called dictators “of the people, by the people, for the people” like the Castro family in Cuba, or the Hugo Chavez family in Venezuela, are actually billionaires with enormous personal wealth stashed away “safely”, and done without asking permission, approval by vote, of the people whom these dictators claim to have served.
The two forms of rulership,—as serving others, or as lording it over them,—are fundamental.
Leadership as serving the followers entails mechanisms of holding leaders accountable to their followers and of removing leaders who no longer serve the followers. The customs and practices of elections, referenda and recalls, impeachment, are among mechanisms evolved to help ensure that leaders do largely serve their followers and not abuse and lord it over their followers, and that removal of abusive leaders can be done by orderly consensus with minimal fights and physical violence, injuries, deaths, etc. This is defined, with a lot of variation and confusion,
as “democracy” or “representative republic” and a balance is supposed to be reached between
an individual person’s autonomy and/or freedom to speak, act, work, pursue recreation and hobbies, and the limits set by laws of society. Laws are passed by people who are deemed accountable to rank and file people, the great common people, and laws can be orderly changed if rank and file people organize themselves and take action. That is democracy implemented by representative republican forms of government [at the early tribal level, the implementing would be through councils of elders, and the name “senator” in a “res publica” are old Roman tribal terms meaning “elder” participating in the “open social thing” so to speak].
—The leadership as lording it over is based essentially on rage and fear by the leader against his followers. In that system, the leader will somehow create professionals who keep him or her away from the common people. The leader may invoke some concept of “divine right” to rule,
or else that he or she establishes some mystical mind-meld with the “spirit” of the followers, the “vozhd” principle, or the “fuehrer” principle. Then such a leader seeks to become like some “god king” who based just on his own personal whim can decide who lives, who dies, who eats, who starves, who walks around free and who goes into a dungeon or a death camp. This style of government probably derives from instances where a given tribe is conquered by military force by strangers who then set up a government over the defeated tribespeople. The conquerors-robbers from the beginning are predators. They establish succession of leaders not by vote of the common people, whom they have brutalized and conquered and essentially hate and fear, but rather by hereditary succession among themselves, depending on family ties among
themselves. —Such is likely the negativistic origin of “hereditary monarchies” as versus original “tribal monarchies”. One example comes to mind:—the hereditary kings of Rome, ultimately deposed and chased out, were not indigenous Romans but were of foreign Etruscan origin.
—Slipshod thinking and slipshod language lead to needless commotion and conflicts over the notions of “equality” and “inequality”. For instance, it may be said that on a spiritual level each person is “equal” in having a soul or “life” even though on other levels there may be no equality in given talents, intellect, health, and other traits. But then consider, there can be several containers whose sizes are not equal on one level but if each of them is full to the brim then they are equal on another level. The striving toward equality on certain levels is perfectly in keeping with the kingdom of heaven, while the establishment of fossilized inequalities like in a caste system serves to make a society not adaptable, brittle and prone to easily shatter, nothing good.
—Leadership as serving the followers actually stems naturally from the way of functioning in creativity in liberty and peace, whereas leadership as lording it over the followers stems from functioning through rage and/or fear, or through a cult of fanatics following a certain leader and persuaded to even kill others or sacrifice their own lives for the tyrannical leader and tyrannical system. Thus, leadership as serving the followers is expected to be generally better for development of the way of the kingdom of heaven to be predominant in society
We very strongly suspect that the ultimate true objective of the so-called “great geopolitical game” in human history with its perpetual warfare on all sorts of levels is to the simply generate the maximal amounts of rage energies and fear energies,—and we suspect this is for the nourishment of certain emotional organisms that influence and even possess humans, so that
humans become like the gladiators in the arena, fighting for the enhancement of Romans, in this case, “invisible Romans” one might say. Therefore, no side ever wins, no peace ever prevails. There are always at least two sides in ferocious and often bloody conflict against each other. The emotional entities which crave rage energies and fear energies as a kind of nourishment seek to influence and/or possess humans to make humans high on predatory rage like on a drug. The objective is nothing but the generation of maximal rage energies and fear energies as the end in itself. All else are pretexts and rationalizations (“conclusions searching for reasons”) for the fundamental maximal action of predatory rage and the stimulation of terror reactive
to this rage. Thus there is only endless churning among humans and also predominantly among other species on the planet, for the endless production of maximum fear energies and rage energies, just thrown out into the air so to speak. Who or what really benefits? We can only perhaps say that it is these observable and verifiable emotional entities within and among humans which get enhanced on a level that is spiritual in the sense of “evil spirits”.
—Only strong human willpower driving a flexible analytical intellect can serve to defuse the ferocious emotionalistic currents. Then the way of the kingdom of heaven within and among humans, which is the way of Lord Jesus, provides as the one and only path to the most ultimate imaginable well-being, which is “salvation”.—Monasticism and asceticism would have little if anything to contribute, which is why the monastically-led churches too often sided with the elites of torturers and oppressors, that torture and oppression should simply be endured because virtue is living like Jesus crucified on the cross, as in the elsewhere mentioned “The Imitation of Christ” book of the Roman Church, and in similar teachings in other denominations.
Note,—here we mean “Jesus” as the way of functioning, including thinking, feeling and acting, that within and among humans is the “one and only way to salvation”. No one comes to salvation except through “Jesus” must mean “Jesus” as the way of functioning through the grace-energies of the kingdom of heaven both within and among humans. This is not any particular group of people or institution or cultural thing, it is not necessarily Catholicism or Orthodox Christianity or Protestantism or Judaism or Islam or any so-called “denomination”.
But the collective of all the humans who predominantly function through the grace-energies of the kingdom of heaven as described by Lord Jesus is the true spiritual worldwide church.
There are other kinds of morality which influence human behavior and human societies.
—1) There is the peculiar “satan’s morality” based on concepts of “pure” versus “impure”
and the concept of “cleansing” meaning attacking and obliterating the source of “impurity”, which often means murder, torture and death to the given person who is the source of the “impurity” sometimes also coming under concepts of “honor”. This system motivates even mass murder and genocide when applied on ethnic, racial, and other grand scale. Adolf Hitler’s ideology (and the secretive devil-worshiping Thule Order standing behind him) applied this morality to justify extermination of nations and races deemed “impurities” on the planet.
This type of morality also focuses on human sexuality and is recorded as the first effect
of the “fall” in the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis, that as man and woman, though legitimately husband and wife, their eyes opened to a new perspective and they felt shame and disgust toward their bodies and toward sexual feelings and attraction unlike in the pre-fallen state. This system of morals is based on deep strong feelings of disgust and anger at sexual attraction, and this system of morals dominates the current overall dealings between adult sexually-capable men and adult sexually-capable women,—in every significant culture and society, throughout known history. Modern interpretations of Sharia law and Muslim values seem to be the most intensively possessed by these fundamental feelings of shame, disgust and rage at sexual attraction between adult men and adult women, so that modern Muslim morality
seems obsessed with keeping men and women basically apart as much as possible and feasible, because “virtuous” members of each gender are “made impure” by the influences of the presence of the other given gender.
The most extreme forms of this obsession are of course amidst the so-called Wahhabi or Salafi or Taliban or “Da’esh Islamic State” movements, where humans are essentially called to become like demons, functioning exclusively through the energies of righteous rage and perpetual holy warfare, like turbocharged machines of righteous rage and holy warfare, and where any type
of love among humans is totally ferociously rejected as no doubt decadent and obscene. It would be no surprise that the Wahhabis, Salafis, Taliban, the Da’esh and similar consider their extreme implementation of this evil and satanic emotionalistic “purity morals” in family relations and in men-women relations in general as the foundation for feeling morally and spiritually superior
to everyone else on the planet. These movements seem to want to generate the ultimate perpetual conflict among humans not along divisions of race, or nationality, or class, but along the genders of men versus women. In the older traditional West of the 19th century this would sometimes also be expressed in notions of “God, the men and the Aryans” versus “Satan, the women and
the Jews”, imagining the ultimate conflict to be between the men and the women.
We think the only workable solution is for all adults to exercise intellectual dominion over emotions in the area of sexual attraction and contact, so that one might indulge or abstain with equal ease, and the rage of disgust with its peculiar evil “music” of tone of voice and violent gestures be obliterated without a trace.
—2) There is the peculiar “non-morality” or “amorality” which we have heard articulated here
or there, by adherents to certain “mystical paths”, and supposed “eastern philosophies and paths” where the concept is that there is something called the Higher Self which regulates and
determines everything, and therefore everything is good, as it should be, and there is no right
or wrong, good or evil, virtue or vice, lawfulness or crime, not really. Everything is relative,
and dependent on the degree of energy and often physical force exerted by so and so.—Though we note that most teachers of this system and believers in this system seem to be people who advocate love, even all-encompassing unconditional love, and are not haters of anyone or anything; however, this system would surely be the sociopath’s and psychopath’s religion,
in that you really do not judge anything and just do whatever gives you the best emotional gratification and that you can get away with it. This would simply be up to whatever comes out of your gut feelings, your instincts, your “heart”, and if you have a bright-natured “heart”,
that’s fine, but if you have a wickedly destructive “heart” then that is also fine, just whatever you can get away with. This is the system which discards all moral, spiritual, ethical and any other judgments.
Some expounders of this system claim to “channel” non-human sources whom they sometimes call “spirit guides” and the like. This system teaches reincarnation, that every soul which dies joins a state of divine bliss, no matter what sort of life the soul led on Earth, because at the Higher Self or Soul Level, everything of the lifetime on Earth is done by pre-birth agreement. The choice of parents, and all of the non-love experiences in the given life are agreed pre-birth, including sickness or health, long lifespan or very short lifespan [including the experience of child death on the parents of that child] and things like crippling accidents, things like murdering and being murdered, things like committing genocide and being victims of genocide,—all is prearranged, agreed pre-birth, and is nothing “evil”. These are simply experiences craved by the Higher Self on a level which is fundamentally illusory like a mere game. Some exponents of this system claim that “spirit guides” teach them this reality. These “spirit guides” are often
supposedly manifest as the given person’s dead “loved ones” of the family. From our standpoint it all sounds like a very creepy deception, by which the conduct which generates maximal rage energies and fear energies cannot be condemned or opposed in any social way.
But from the Christian viewpoint, our ultimate mission must be to reduce and eliminate
the influence of ways which oppose and rival the way of the kingdom of heaven succinctly defined as the humans functioning through creativity in liberty and peace within oneself and
with others, as against functioning through predatory rage and reactive fear, and/or against functioning through idolatry, exalting some idol for the sake of which humans sacrifice other
humans all the way to killing others and also killing themselves, thereby generating maximal rage energies and fear energies in worship to the given idol. In reality, this is worship
of emotional entities that crave rage energies and fear energies.—The traditional Aztec religion comes to mind as a model. This religion was based on perpetual warfare, constant human sacrifices, and eating of human flesh. The Aztec society was not capitalist. It was in all
respects highly sophisticated for its time, with cities rivaling any city in Europe at the time,
with schooling, poetry, ceremonies, a clever agrarian economy,—by no means primitive naked savages. Yet this society came under the grip of this cult practice which eventually doomed it
to quick destruction when the Spaniards came and found non-Aztecs eager to join the Spanish force and help destroy the Aztecs and their abominable bloodthirsty religion,—a kind of epitomy of idol-worship becoming demon-worship. And today becoming reborn and resurgent in the cult of boundless righteous rage, endless holy warfare, the ongoing human sacrifice of endlessly ongoing martyrs, and just waiting for eating of human flesh to somehow surface, in the movement of Da’esh Islamic State, and similar versions of heretical Muslim movements
in the Middle East.—And to avoid blaming Islam exclusively, in recent 20th century history,
the creepy bloodthirsty Khmer Rouge in Cambodia were veering in this direction, and so were the Stalinists in the USSR, and the Hitlerists in Germany, and many less-known movements
in Africa and/or Asia veered in that direction, of endless warfare, human sacrifices, and if not eating human flesh then obliterating human flesh in other ways.
We suspect that “money” which is largely a “smoke & mirrors” human psychological concept
for convenience, is really not such a strong factor or influence. Money is just a convenient tool related to social-political-spiritual power as versus social-political-spiritual weakness.
One other thing, in commentary about the criticism of the “post-Christian secular West” and the concept of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” for each individual human person,—as supposedly against “community”. But “community” is not really some entity that goes around greeting people. “Community” really means select elite persons functioning as “spokespersons” and authority on behalf of what they define as “community”. Community is made up
of individuals, and if most individuals on individual basis function through the kingdom
of heaven, in creativity in liberty and peace, then this community shall also function that way
as a whole and shall be healthy and thriving, creative, free and peaceful. When you talk about sacrificing the individual’s life, liberty and happiness for the sake of “community” you really mean sacrificing a given individual for the sake of an elite group of other individuals who establish their own selves as spokespersons and leaders of the community. Something similar can be said regarding the concept of “tradition”, given that what is deemed “traditional” today was at some point in the past deemed “innovative” and “radical” as against even earlier structures.
For instance, the modern-day tradition is to oppose any form of prostitution under any circumstances. However, in certain ancient societies the act of prostitution was a “tradition” associated with religious worship. Biblical morality which surged in opposition to all forms of prostitution is considered “tradition” today but at a time in the past it was an innovation seeking to overthrow the earlier tradition. Modern Islamic Wahhabist, Salafist and Da’esh Islamic State movement seeks to elevate bloody boundless endless warfare and atrocities as something “holy” and as the ultimate proper worship of God, where peacefulness is condemned as “decadent” and obscene. It seeks to establish a new “tradition” to overthrow the previous “tradition” of preferring peacefulness.
The ultimate criterion for acceptance or rejection of any teaching and any practice and any morality has to be its “fruits” as Lord Jesus states that prophets must be judged by their “fruits”, thus judged practically and empirically. All in all, the recorded words, thoughts and example
of Lord Jesus give us the guidance as to what should be the desirable fruits.
It looks like older versions of Islam emphasized the mercifulness and benevolence of God [“Allah” being merely the Arabic term Al-Lah, meaning “the God” or “the one God”], and all chapters of the Quran (Koran, the holy book)—except for one chapter—begin with a standard invocation to God as all-merciful and benevolent. All the other world religions, those which are not outright satanistic devil-worshiping “black magic” types, all agree that God is fundamentally loving, benevolent and merciful. The modern heretical Muslims, the Wahhabists, Salafists and Da’esh Islamic State, it looks like, use a principle of so-called abrogation in a purely mechanical way, giving no thought to the established benevolent foundation of God. And by claiming that portions of the Quran revealed later abrogate those portions revealed earlier, they claim that the supposedly latest chapter, the ninth, which lacks the invocation to God as merciful and calls for unlimited bloody warfare against all who do not believe or who do not practice their belief “perfectly”, thereby automatically by mere timeline abrogates all other precepts in the Quran which may disagree.—It is the conclusion looking for its reason, all this to generate maximal rage energies and fear energies throughout the world to benefit, in concrete fact, any predatory emotional entities which are nourished and enhanced by such energies.
When the monastic cadres very early on took over the spiritual leadership in the Christian churches,—given that Lord Jesus did not set forth such an example in His own recorded rather “secular” lifestyle, this became a very harmful deviation. Rebellion against essentially monastic spirituality became the rallying points of modern secularism.
Then modern secularism in American culture has given rise to perhaps two forms, not one: on the one hand, we have the popular hedonistic culture veering toward a kind of gangster-prison system and set of values, stressing a very unnecessary blend of indulgence in sexual behavior associated with violent behavior. On the other hand, we have the “puritanism on steroids” or the “satan’s morality” governed by boundless hatred between the adult sexually-capable men and the adult sexually-capable women, the terminology of the “pure” versus “impure” and/or “clean” versus “unclean” and/or “honorable” versus “dishonorable” and/or “strong-harsh gloriously warlike” versus “decadent-weak-peaceloving”. The unleashed boundless righteous rage-energy
and the spiritual concept of endless holy warfare as the ultimate “divine liturgy” in worship
of Lord God, as embodied today in the Da’esh movement or other similar ferocious Muslim movements are also like the deadly cobra staring hypnotically into the eyes of the mere mouse
of so-called American Puritanism with its relative weakness of its relative hypocrisy. American Puritanism shrinks back from producing outright demons out of humans, but the Da’esh or
Taliban or Wahhabist puritanism does not shrink back but marches to the goal of
“humans into demons” with the utmost pride and fatally false sense of ultimate moral and spiritual righteousness.
I have a question for you Anonymous
Where can I find this book ?
Not a “book”,—just a brief summary of prominent points and issues, but granted over a rather broad scope. If you are honestly interested, I have some multipage treatises on these topics which I can share with you.
I think I am not just the only one who is interested,so we are waiting you back on Cafe,where you can post new things and we can comment on that.Your post is very long but I find it very interesting and I read it twice for better understanding.Maybe – if I may suggest – try to make your post shorter,as for readers to be more simple to digest and comment.
“Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward ”
Anyone who is able to reason logically should be able to understand that the fight and strive being referred to here is spiritual.
(Quran (2:191-193): “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful”.
This particular verse was revealed to the Prophet after years of oppression from none Muslims. Muslims were driven out of their homes in Makkah and their properties were forcefully taken from them. When the Prophet and his followers got set to return to Makkah and reclaim the Ka’abah they were instructed to take back what rightfully belongs to them. This is morally and legally justified with or without religion.
You chose to use the tactics those terrorists use to brainwash people. This particular verse is from Suratul Al Anfal. The Surah was revealed during the trying times of Muslims when they were constantly attacked. Allah gave them the command to fight back (self defense). Of course they were being attacked because of their submission to Allah so if they had indeed submitted their lives to Allah, then they should be willing to fight to defend that faith.
You speak double language. It has nothing to do with Sunni/Shia sectarianism. You are blaming the Holy Quran without bringing any proof.
Your double speak says, that there is nothing wrong with the Holy Quran, but it has to do with it false interruption.
My single speak says, if the interruption is the culprit then there must be something in the Holy Quran which makes people to interruption it wrongly.
You mention, yes it is, but only people who know the Arabic language will understand it.
I have asked you umpteen times, that I am an Arab Muslim from Oman, and asked you to please quote those verses from the Holy Quran which leads to false interruption of the Holy Quran.
From day one I am ready for your challenge?
Your answer, “No one took the challenge”.
And, then you wrap your double speak in sectarianism.
Nah, it’s Saudi Arabia that’s the problem. See you think Islam is being interpreted wrong. All religions are so subjective they can be interpreted in anyway. Stalin as a saint? I mean come on…
The problem is those rich Saudi/Gulf kids. The sons of rich men who are given billions is Western accounts. Inbred (most likely a cousin marriage) and wealthy.
When I was in Syria and Lebanon, a long time ago before the crisis, I’d see these gulf Arabs go into night clubs in Damascus and Beirut. They’d shower money on the dancers and the singers and girls at the bar. They’d act like literal fools. I cannot find a better word than that. True fools. The owner of the club would get them piss drunk, he’d splurge large swaths of cash on the floor and once he got thoroughly hammered that he can’t stand they’d dump him in a cab to go to his hotel.
Oh look here’s a video I’m sure EVERY Arab has seen (or should see) of the exact situation I speak of:
NOW look at how this retard is throwing money and imagine picturing his son, who’s 18-28, has access to billions (or at least the interest of which his billions accumulate), and is going through some transitional period in his life. Be it the hormones of growth, or missing god/meaning in his life, or has seen too many war movies and wants to be a “warrior” (while in the West soldiers, who are 18-22 years old, are portrayed as being stoic warriors who contemplate long and hard before going to war, the reality is far detached from that).
This is a dangerous combination. A kid like that, with an Islamic background, a connection to deep money, and is exposed to the wrong ideas (or knows some “real gangster jihadi m…..” and wants to be “tough”; understandable for a male of that age) and he’ll be raining that same money onto the jihadists. As long as that’s possible criminal entities inside the Islamic world will continue to gain traction. After all money makes the world go round and round.
These criminal entities are not stupid people, they’ll open up mosques in Pakistan, in African countries, in places where the poor, desperate, and uneducated peoples of the world can easily be indoctrinated. Find recruits. They’ll shield their own money, they’ll invest it in drug trafficking, in legitimate investments in Western banks….they just need that one-time donation injection. OBL and his Al-Qaeda homies in Afghanistan is a text-book example of this.
Cut off the head of the snake and the rest of the body withers.
What confuses is me is why Arabs have not revolted at the House of Saud. Are their hearts filled with avarice that all it takes is a few dollars and they’ll keep their mouths shut? Because that’s what it looks like. First intimidate whoever is making noise, and if that fails just buy them out (which always works).
Salam brother John Rambo,
The hatred created in the mind of masses is at least a decade old. God bless Obama, Putin and especially King Salman of Saudi Arabia. Slowly, slowly since King Salam become the King of Saudi Arabia, he is eradicating the head of the snake.
Please refer back to the Guest Article by Hamza Haidar called, “After The Prophet”. Here is the link:
Hamza Haidar quotes Sheikh Hassan Bin Farhan Al Maliki in his above article and says:
Now ask yourself a simple question. Why is Sheikh Hassan is allowed to preach from Saudi Arabia?
P.S. Middle East is going through tremendous changes and all positive ones. God Bless King Salman of Saudi Arabia. Another positive change is low, low price of oil from which food for the poor masses of the world is produced.
I read it.
I suppose the bombing of Yemen can be seen as positive in a certain light….
As for Sheikh Hassan, the answer is simple. Keep him close so when you need to execute him (to send a message no less) he’s not in some Western country out of grasp of the secret police. Look how much traction the Ahmediyya movement received once it was in the West.
Salam John Rambo,
Sheikh Hassan is not the only one. Almost on a daily basis, there appears an Ulema from Arabian Countries saying that the Shia version of history is correct. A compromise is being offered to Shia, that to leave the first three Caliphs alone, provided that all in are in agreement that they are the ones who hijacked the Islam.
Fourth Caliph was Ali, and fifth Caliph was Muawiya, the son of Abu Suffyan (Omayyad), who took the Caliphate by sword. Muawiya passed it on to his son Yazid and it become the Omayyad Dynasty. It was Yazid who butchered the complete Family of Mohammad (saws). Within 150 years the Muslims got rid of Omayyad Dynasty, thus ensuring the end of House of Omayyad.
About 600 years later, ibn Taymiyyah revived the Pseudo House of Omayyad. Muslims locked him up and literally threw away the keys to his imprisonment into the sea. Ibn Taymiyyah was revived by the British in the shape of Mohammad bin Abdul Wahhab and the House of Saud.
I believe a good compromise is now being offered to Shia, and the Shia have already accepted it. It will take time to change people’s minds, a slow and a laborious process.
When Ukraine happened, I was the first one on this blog who claimed that both Obama and Putin are working together.
Things seem real, but like magic, they are illusion. A good example is on 9/11, planes flying into buildings. Now Yemen, Syria, Libya and Ukraine are part of this illusion.
The British also created in IndoPak two sects, for people who have no knowledge of Arabic. A Shia sect called, Ismaili and and a Sunni sect called Quaidiyana. On break up of India it split into two branches, one branch for India and another for Pakistan, thus becoming Quaidiyana/Ahmediyya. Only traction Ahmediyya is collecting of massive revenues from Western Converts, and nothing more.
Sheikh Hassan has been interviewed in many Arab Countries, with the Ulemas of those Countries. Here is a link of him being interviewed on Oman TV by an Omani Ulema.
Unfortunately, it is all in Arabic. But you see the logo of Oman TV.
In Islam there are two sources of Scriptures.
1. Holy Quran which is revealed by God.
2. Life of Mohammad, which supposed be to an example of Walking, Talking Quran. This is called Sunnah.
Both Sunni and Shia have the same Quran. However, when it comes to Sunnah, they have different books. The first three Caliphs burned the books of Sunnah, saying that the Book of Allah (Quran) is sufficient for us. The House of Omayyad from fifth Caliph onward cooked the Sunnah and recreated the Sunnah to suit their Kingdom and their Rules of Kingdom.
The Sunni Six Authenticated Books of Sunnah were complied 250 years after the death of Mohammad (saws). The most Authenticated Book was compiled by Bukhari and he named it, “Authenticated Bukhari Book of Hadiths”
The Second Book of Sunnah was complied by Bukhari’s student called, Muslim. He named his book, “The Authenticated Muslim Book of Hadiths”. And, so on.
Anyone who questioned these Six Authenticated Books were put to death. In practical terms, their status became higher than the Holy Quran, which is unthinkable.
Therefore, Sheikh Hassan is not questioning Wahhabism, he is questioning these Six Authenticated Books of Hadiths and that if they are Genuine or not. Basically, he with others are shaking the core of the Sunni Muslims.
Here is 14 minutes videos with sub-titles, in which Sheikh Hassan questions these Six Books:
In the past, the Shia used to do this, and they were put to death.
Sheikh Hassan is bringing back the Holy Quran. But don’t confuse yourself with Quran Only Muslims, who are non-Arabic speakers and who are followers of Rashad Kalifa a recent Coptic from Egypt.
@Muslim scholars, Sunni and Shia, will probably disagree with the reading given in the Circle Of Beauty page, but they have an onus to look, and if they disagree, they also have the onus to present their own argument as to why they disagree.
Muslim scholars are the custodians of the received word. The interpretation which elicits the accord of the majority is the ‘legitimate’ one (even if per se is a lie), they don’t have to present any argument for rejecting other interpretations. The burden of proof is on the dissenter. What is that fanciful Circle of Beauty page? There is no proof that whoever wrote has the right interpretation (deleting the “misinterpreted” passages or substituting them with paraphrases is downright falsification).
Bring out the big guns?
Ghassan Kadi – you have not argued your point with any of the comments on this article.
Although I don’t have a religion I guess I am a bit old fashioned. I don’t expect my wife to fight for me. If you believe in something- right or wrong put up your counter augment.
Third article now on this subject, so fight your own battles.
Evidence of the strife now within Europe over Islam………
“Right-wing party Alternative for Germany (AfD) declared last Sunday that Islam is incompatible with the German constitution.
In an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, the anti-immigration party’s deputy leader Beatrix von Storch pledged that AfD would try to ban mosques and burqas.
“Islam is in itself a political ideology that is not compatible with the constitution. We are in favor of a ban on minarets, on muezzins and a ban on full veils,” von Storch said.
MEP von Storch’s remarks come just one month after AfD prevailed over Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Party in various regional elections. The party managed to muster 24 percent of the vote in the region of Saxony-Anhalt, defeating even the left-wing Social Democrats.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160418/1038204559/islam-germany-constitution-afd.html#ixzz46BjENzaj
Germany’s right-wing AfD party are compared to Hitler by Muslim group after they declared Islam ‘incompatible’ with the country and called for a ban on Mosque minarets and burkas
AdD party has drawn support over opposition to open door refugee policy
But a leader of German Muslims likened its stance to Nazis towards Jews
Party claimed that Islam is political ideology that is not compatible with the constitution
For more of the latest Germany news visit http://www.dailymail.co.uk/germany
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3545816/Germany-s-right-wing-AfD-party-compared-Hitler-Muslim-group-declared-Islam-incompatible-country-called-ban-Mosque-minarets-burkas.html#ixzz46Bk7qXmp
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Revealed: The two Scottish neo-Nazi sisters at forefront of anti-Muslim race-hate campaign – including one who served time for throwing bacon at a mosque
Chelsea, 20, and Samantha Lambie, 25, from Paisley, both idolise Hitler
They support Scottish Defence League and feature in neo-Nazi propaganda
Chelsea attacked a mosque with bacon and racially abused an Asian man
Samantha attends anti-refugee marches and is engaged to an SDL activist
By STEPH COCKROFT FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 10:04, 18 April 2016 | UPDATED: 12:33, 18 April 2016
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3545374/Blonde-neo-Nazi-sisters-forefront-race-hate-campaign-one-served-time-throwing-bacon-mosque.html#ixzz46BkHbL00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Angela Merkel is warned by her ‘mentor’ Helmut Kohl (that she prevously denounced in 2013 my brackets info)that Europe cannot become home for millions of migrants whose beliefs are different to ‘the foundations of our values’
Former German Chancellor attacks the open-door policy of his ‘golden girl’
He said: ‘National policies of the lone-knight variety must be left in the past’
Kohl warned that peace and freedom is at risk through mass immigration
He is to meet Hungarian PM who has fiercely resisted taking in migrants
For more of the latest on Angela Merkel visit http://www.dailymail.co.uk/merkel
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3545331/Angela-Merkel-warned-Europe-home-millions-migrants-beliefs-different-foundations-values-mentor-Helmut-Kohl.html#ixzz46BlrTzsM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Thr world will become a better place when people stop believing fairy stories. No interpretation required
Mr Ghassan Kadi’s articles made sense to me and I am also beginning to question the seemingly self-replenishing ranks of militants in Syria and Iraq in particular and also the seemingly collective apathy towards the Syrian and Iraqi pro-government people in the countries of Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The ordinary people in those countries I mean, not the government and their goons.
I’d first like to post something out of Memories, Dreams, Reflections by C. G. Jung (1989 Vintage Books Edition), starting from page 328 before posting my follow-up thoughts that I deemed worth sharing:
….The Christian world is now truly confronted by the principle of evil, by naked injustice, tyranny, lies, slavery, and coercion of conscience. This manifestation of naked evil has assumed apparently permanent form in the Russian nation; but its first violent eruption came in Germany. That outpouring of evil revealed to what extent Christianity has been undermined in the twentieth century. In the face of that, evil can no longer be minimized by the euphemism of the privatio boni. Evil has become a determinant reality. It can no longer be dismissed from the world by a circumlocution. We must learn how to handle it, since it is here to stay. How we can live with it without terrible consequences cannot for the present be conceived.
In any case, we stand in need of a reorientation, a metanoia. Touching evil brings with it the grave peril of succumbing to it. We must, therefore, no longer succumb to anything at all, not even to good. A so-called good to which we succumb loses it ethical character. Not that there is anything bad in it on that score, but to have succumbed to it may breed trouble. Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism. We must beware of thinking of good and evil as absolute opposites. The criterion of ethical action can no longer consist in the simple view that good has the force of a categorical imperative, while so-called evil can resolutely be shunned. Recognition of the reality of evil necessarily relativizes the good, and the evil likewise, converting both into halves of a paradoxical whole.
In practical terms, this means that good and evil are no longer so self-evident. We have to realize that each represents a judgement. In view of the fallibility of all human judgement, we cannot believe that we will always judge rightly. We might so easily be the victims of misjudgment. The ethical problem is affected by this principle only to the extent that we become somewhat uncertain about moral evaluation. Nevertheless we have to make ethical decisions. The relativity of “good” and “evil” by no means signifies that these categories are invalid, or do not exist. Moral judgment is always present and carries with it characteristic psychological consequences. I have pointed out many times that as in the past, so in the future the wrong we have done, thought, or intended will wreak its vengeance on our souls. Only the contents of judgment are subject to the differing conditions of time and place and, therefore, take corresponding different forms. For moral evaluation is always founded upon the apparent certitudes of a moral code which pretends to know precisely what is good and what evil. But once we know how uncertain the foundation is, ethical decision becomes a subjective, creative act. We can convince ourselves of its validity only Deo concedente – that is, there must be a spontaneous and decisive impulse on the part of the unconscious. Ethics itself, the decision between good and evil, is not affected by this impulse, only made more difficult for us. Nothing can spare us the torment of ethical decision. Nevertheless, harsh as it may sound, we must have the freedom in some circumstances to avoid the known moral good and do what is considered to be evil: we must not succumb to either of the opposites. A useful pattern is provided by the neti-neti of Indian philosophy. In given cases, the moral code is undeniably abrogated and ethical choice is left to the individual. In itself there is noting new about this idea; in pre-psychological days such difficult choices were also known and came under the heading of “conflict of duties.”
As a rule, however, the individual is so unconscious that he altogether fails to see his own potentialities for decision. Instead he is constantly and anxiously looking around for external rules and regulations which can guide him in his perplexity. Aside from general human inadequacy, a good deal of the blame for this rests with education which promulgates the old generalizations and says nothing about the secrets of private experience. Thus, every effort is made to teach idealistic beliefs or conduct which people know in their hearts they can never live up to, and such ideals are preached by officials who know that they themselves have never lived up to these high standards and never will. What is more, nobody ever questions the value of this kind of teaching.
Jung importantly continues:
Therefore the individual who wishes to have an answer to the problem of evil, as it is posed today, has need, first and foremost, of self-knowledge, that is, the utmost possible knowledge of his own wholeness. He must know relentlessly how much good he can do, and what crimes he is capable of, and must beware of regarding one as real and the other as illusion. Both are elements within his nature, and both are bound to come to light in him, should he wish-as he ought-to live without self-deception or self-delusion.
In general, however, most people are hopelessly ill equipped for living on this level, although there are also many persons today who have the capacity for profounder insight into themselves. Such self-knowledge is of prime importance, because through it we approach that fundamental stratum or core of human nature where the instincts dwell. Here are those pre-existent dynamic factors which ultimately govern the ethical decisions of our consciousness. This core is the unconscious and its contents, concerning which we cannot pass any final judgment. Our ideas about it are bound to be inadequate, for we are unable to comprehend its essence cognitively and set rational limits to it. We achieve knowledge of nature only through science, which enlarges consciousness; hence deepened self-knowledge also requires science, that is, psychology. No one builds a telescope or microscope with one turn of the wrist, out of good will alone, without a knowledge of optics.
Today we need psychology for reasons that involve our very existence. We stand perplexed and stupefied before the phenomenon of Nazism and Bolshevism because we know nothing about man, or at any rate have only a lopsided and distorted picture of him. If we had self-knowledge, that would not be the case. We stand face to face with the terrible question of evil and do not even know what is before us, let alone what to pit against it. And even if we did know, we still count not understand “how it could happen here.” With glorious naivete a statesman comes out with the proud declaration that he has no “imagination for evil.” Quite right: we have no imagination for evil, but evil has us in its grip. Some do not want to know this, and others are identified with evil. That is the psychological situation in the world today: some call themselves Christians and imagine that they can trample so-called evil underfoot by merely willing to; others have succumbed to it and no longer see the good. Evil today has become a visible Great Power. One half of humanity battens and grows strong on a doctrine fabricated by human ratiocination; the other half sickens from the lack of a myth commensurate with the situation. The Christian nations have come to a sorry pass; their Christianity slumbers and has neglected to develop its myths further in the course of the centuries. Those who gave expression to the dark stirrings of growth in mythical ideas were refused a hearing; Gioacchino da Fiore, Meister Eckhart, Jacob Boehme, and many others have remained obscurantists for the majority. The only ray of light is Pius XII and his dogma. But people do not even know what I am referring to when I say this. They do not realize that a myth is dead if it no longer lives and grows.
Our myths has become mute, and gives no answers. The fault lies not in it as it is set down in the Scriptures, but solely in us, who have not developed it further, who, rather, have suppressed any such attempts. The original version of the myth offers ample points of departure and possibilities of development….
The old question posed by the Gnostics, “Whence comes evil?” has been given no answer by the Christian world, and Origen’s cautious suggestion of a possible redemption of the devil was termed a heresy. Today we are compelled to meet that question; but we stand empty-handed, bewildered, and perplexed, and cannot even get it into our heads that no myth will come to our aid although we have such urgent need of one. As the result of the political situation and the frightful, not to say diabolical, triumphs of science, we are shaken by secret shudders and dark forebodings; but we know no way out, and very few persons indeed draw the conclusion that this time the issue is the long-since-forgotten soul of man.
Carl Jung (possibly Allied Agent no. 488) was expressing his thoughts on Christianity and its neglect, up to the date of writing, the Cold War. There seems to be hints in some of his use of words and phrases that all is not what it appeared to the common man living in the West: that the USSR is not really the “evil”, that the West is not really the “good”, that all of us are sick psychologically in some way or the other…
Back on topic regarding Daesh and the roots of extremism that somehow grows out of certain interpretations of the holy Quran. I think Jung’s assessment of what he saw as neglects and problems in Christianity can serve as a guide to Ghassan Kadi’s writings about Daesh and Islam. Some of Jung’s thoughts even seemed valid to me for both religions, in particular the need for self-knowledge of how much good and evil a person is capable of, and the need of a growing myth or if you prefer, a growing and living interpretation of the holy Scriptures.
Da’esh are Khajirites (‘exiters’) so the whole question seems redundant.
Salam Brother Eimar,
Brother Ghassan Kadi has raised valid questions about the corrupt and dishonest theology of Islam. I disagree with him about his claim that the Culprit is the false interruption of the Holy Quran. The Culprit is that Islam was hijacked while the body of the Prophet was still not buried yet. The Muslims know this and fortunately there are now trying to address this issue after 1500 years, due to internet and readability of available knowledge.
The above link you quoted is full of intentional inaccuracies and excuses, just like the video posted on this blog of Sheikh Imran Hosein. At the bottom of the article, it contains the link to Sheikh Imran Hosein’s video.
Autopsy and Excommunication are very powerful tools in the hands of Religious and/or Political Leaders. Islam and Prophet did away with both of these tools. Also, the Islam and Prophet tried to do away with Slavery by giving other incentives.
At the death of the Prophet, Ali’s rights were usurped and Abu Bakr become the First Leader after the Prophet’s death. Different parts of the Muslim Ummah revolted. The Governor of Yemen refused to pay Abu Bakr the charity tax collected in the province of Yemen. Abu Bakr called all the Yemenis as Apostate and declared war on Yemen. The first civil war happened within Muslims, six months later after the death of the Prophet.
In this war lead by Khalid bin Waleed, the Yemeni Muslims who were called Apostate, were massacred en masses. Their property looted and their women raped. Abu Bakr called it a minor lapse in judgement of Khalid bin Waleed. Slavery, was back and thriving as the Yemenis were taken as slaves and their women and money distributed.
The term Ijma which mean Consensus, is part of Sunni Islam. Basically, Old English (Tort) Law is Consensus and nothing has to do with religion. When the second Leader Omar died, he choose a committee of seven of Omayyad and tasked them to choose between Usman (a Omayyad) and Ali as their next leader. In the end Ali lost to Usman, as he refused to rule by Consensus, he wanted to rule by Allah and His Prophet.
When Usman was murdered by his own troops, the masses made Ali the Leader. Aisha the wife of the Prophet raised a massive army against Ali. This was the second civil war and Aisha and her troops lost. The Muslims demanded that Aisha and her remaining troops to be called Apostate, their property confiscated and they to be taken in Slavery as compensation for their losses as paid by Abu Bakr and this has been the Consensus so far.
Ali refused. He also tried to remove Muawiya the First Cousin of Usman, the Son of Abu Suffyan as the Governor of Syria. Muawiya had Ali murdered while Ali was leading the Salat (Praying) in the Mosque. The rest is History.
The Son of Abu Suffyan took over and created Omayyad Dynasty. Back in Business were Apostasy, Consensus, Slavery, Burning of Books, History and Saying of the Prophet was recreated.
The World and Sunni know this!
What is the easiest scenario/options for Sunni Muslims to swallow after 1500 years the Daesh and Islam being so exposed in front of the World?
1. That the Islam was hijacked on the onset by the Companions of the Prophet and changed to justify their rule and lootings.
2. Or, Islam was changed on the False Interpretation of the Holy Quran.
BTW, the capital of Abu Suffyan, the Omayyad Dynasty was in Syria. The Theology of Omayyad Dynasty, ibn Taymiyyah and Wahhabi is from Syria too. Ibn Taymiyyah massive Grave is in Syria too, where no Tafkiri taught of Torpedoing the Grave.
@What is the easiest scenario/options
That the “Companions”, in cahoots with the Jews invented Mahomed, the Koran, Islam as “Abrahamic religion”.
But this scenario is met with utmost rage by the most “moderate” and reform-minded Muslim and dismissed out of hand as “an unholy conspiracy of the Western man, coordinating the powers of the State, Church and Academia” and “the aberrant streaks of his arrogant personality—its reckless rationalism, its world-domineering phantasy and its sectarian fanaticism, to dislodge the Muslim Scripture from its firmly entrenched position as the epitome of historic authenticity and moral unassailability”!
LOL, it is the Sunni who claim that the Shia Islam is led by a Jew Abdullah ibn Saba’ who infiltrated the Shia Islam:
As far as hijacking of the religions are concerned, it is you as a minority who claim that the Pope hijacked your religion to led the sheep towards his glory and riches.
Even, if we go higher than the Pope, there are claims that Jesus religion was hijacked too by the Romans. This again to control the sheep and to accumulate riches and glory.
Islam is no exception! :)
“That the “Companions”, in cahoots with the Jews invented Mahomed, the Koran, Islam as “Abrahamic religion”.”
If you are the same Wizard of Oz from Unz.com I have a completely new respect for you.
Collecting revenue from pilgrimage, raiding pilgrims from Medina to Mecca is a time-honored Saudi tradition (it happens even today as hotel staff basically raid through guest luggage). It’s as if it was invented to collect revenue.
“Imam Ali [a.s] describes God ( 720p HD ) part 1”
“Imam Ali [a.s] describes God (720p HD) part 2 “
“Imam Ali [a.s] describes God (720p HD) part 3 “
You omited other option: ¿What about that old ideology that promped a borderless humanity based on equality an the construction of other humanity where religion will not exist anymore because the material conditions of it will dessapear?? I am talking, of course, about communism (whether in the marxist or anarchist form); however I am not thinking on the “old days of the glorious Soviet Union…” (The USSR made a lot of mistakes) but on the third player on the Syria’s ground: the kurds. Can you say the communism in the variety that the kurds are building is not ideologically superior to the wahhabism or the islam as a whole?? Waiting for your answer.