Islam Is A Perfect Religion ?

[Rasputin]

Islam, as a social order, is what distinguishes reality from other religions. In this article, considering Islam as a functional political system, I propose a democratic discussion about its authenticity and divinity, as expected by many secular Iranians.

Islam is a composite of beliefs and traditions from divergent monotheist prophets, of those who would teach the belief in God. But Muhammad, in his further career, abandoned spiritual teachings. He demanded social and moral principles with strict adherence to certain religious practices. To see how Islam grew into such a politically and socially important phenomenon, let us take an unbiased look on the development of Islam, initially alleged as a religion.

Prophecy
The alleged revelation of the Koran started when Muhammad was 40 and living under unknown psychological circumstances in Mecca. Sometimes he heard a noise like a resonance of bell resembling a voice, but never a real voice.

In his mind, he started believing that he was commissioned to communicate a divine message to his fellow citizens, so started his prophecy linked with the revelation of the Koran.

The first “Ayah” (verse) of the Koran was delivered by Gabriel to “illiterate” Muhammad, commanding him to “read with the name of Allah”. On such moments of first revelation, he was in a kind of trance (ecstasy) with typical appearances, such as perspiring, shivering on a cold day, etc. All those symptoms suggest he was probably epileptic.

Perhaps because of his excessive suffering in the past, he looked in his unconsciousness for sources of enlightenment. Apart from some religious books and preaching, there are no authentic sources that concretely prove any psychological stance under which Muhammad claimed his prophecy.

Muhammad Ibn Abdullah
It is generally believed that Muhammad was a man who had entirely human qualities: He was a successful businessman, a genius organiser, a sage thinker who took advantage of opportunities, and a quick speaker. He liked fine perfumes and children. He was decent, humble and helpful to his “Ansar” (companions) and generous to the poor, with whom he shared his meal, and he was “al-amin” (reliable).

But as a powerful man in Medina, he was not only using and abusing the existing traditional norms of society; he was also violating ethical rules of his own religion to achieve his goals. As such, he had the privilege of having more wives than was permitted under his own Islamic law. He even had the controversial right to marry his daughter-in-law, Zainab--she divorced the Prophet’s adopted son (Zaid) to marry the Prophet. As a husband, he had the advantage to arbitrarily treat his wives as he wanted.

In his financial exploits, he allowed himself the right to rob caravans (for which other robbers would have been beheaded), or to impose humiliating “Jizya” (taxes charged from non-Muslims) on “Dhimmis” (conjugated Christian and Jewish minorities living in the early Islamic community). As a political leader, he ordered the confiscation of lands and properties from “Dhimmis”, his enemies. He openly claimed that “the spoils of war were made lawful unto me”. He had the right to fight back against his rivals, and was merciless and revengeful toward his enemies and rivals, even so far that he gave orders to murder many of them.

Nevertheless, he was religiously and politically a prominent leader. He was the founder of the first Arab Empire (a Caliphate which became during a long period after the Prophet’s death one of the biggest conquerors in the then world).

Historically, many believe that Muhammad was a religious and politically prominent leader. He undoubtedly left significant marks in the history of mankind. Many Western scholars, without believing in Muhammad’s prophecy, have confirmed this fact. However, the sources of information about the personal life of Muhammad are reduced to the Koran, “Sirah” (biography of the Prophet) and some part of Hdiths which are considered as “sahih” (reliable).

The Koran
The Koran is alleged to be God’s message to mankind. It was allegedly delivered by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad in 114 “Surahs” (chapters), which are sub-divided into “Ayah” (verses). The script of the Koran continued in separate pieces over some 23 years.

The doctrine of the Koran emphasises strict “Taweed” (monotheism). It challenges the pantheism of both ancient Greek and Oriental religions, which prior to Islam had been identifying God with the forces of nature and with the natural substances within space and time.

Taweed also rejects Christian Trinity, which claims that God is three persons in one substance. It considers any idea of joining others with God as a “shirk” (an unforgivable sin). Everything created by God is limited to a measure and reason. Nothing can escape from the divine rules, including Jinn (an intelligent being created from pure fire) and man (created from earth). This would be equivalent to saying that none of Allah’s creatures can escape from destiny--a doctrine which favours socio-economic backwardness in the Islamic world.

It is interesting to mention that the idea of the first element (arche) had been an explanation for everything since the ancient Greek philosophy. Ancient Greek philosophers were the first to emphasise rational unity of things by rejecting mythological explanations of the world. The elements of earth from Empedocles and fire from Heraclites (as the first element of man and Jinn), also, have been integrated into the Koran.

The Koran for any Time
Despite many prudent “Tafsir” (interpretations), the Koran is left untouched by criticism.

Because of the conviction that considers it as the infallible word of God, it neither can be influenced nor modified by the circumstances. Refuting one single verse of the Koran means to “condemn” the whole Islam in its perfection.

With a taboo dogma, some Muslims still believe that “The righteous Koran can contain no mistake and it cannot be suppressed by any new discovery and can apply to any circumstances with no temporal or geographical border”. The origin of the Koran is supposed to be inserted as God’s eternal word on golden tablets in paradise.

The Koran as God’s word
A major part of the Koran consists of commands and warnings for Muslims, a smaller part contains histories, myths, and the events related also in other Holy Books (Torah, Bible)--sometimes with some differences in detail.

These differences or contradictions in the Koran, nevertheless, reveal the doubt on the divine origin of these Holy Books. The flaws and contradictions of the Koran are to explain what Muhammad might have forgotten, over many years of prophetic activities, his own previous words; or he had to update his words accordingly. For example, creation of the earth is mentioned after heaven in some verses, but in others it is mentioned either together or before heaven. There is also an ambiguous duration in which creation took place, it is mentioned 6 and in some other verses 8 days.

The “Quibble” (the direction of pray) was Jerusalem, and then in other verses it changed to Mecca, without explaining if the change was due to a mistake of a divine pre-calculation or to a trend of the Prophet.

But the blunders are in a few verses that imply that Moses lived at the same time as Noah, or that Moses was the uncle of Jesus! Another verse says that “Jesus taught people, even in his old age”!

Stubborn and strict Muslims, however, account for the differences between the verses of the Koran and the texts of other Holy Books, by claiming that only the Koran is original and preserves the truth.

The fact that the Koran is intact can be very controversial since its characteristics like repetition, arbitrary succession, and rhythmic style reflect a human collective modification in its origin. Many secular scholars are less willing to attribute the entire Koran to Muhammad.

Being restricted by respect for the Koran, modification of its origin could not lessen its obscurities, which are understood. A typical problem of this kind is the point that in some verses of the Koran, Muhammad warns his people by swearing to God, where God is understood in the third person and not as the direct source of the message.

For many critics the Koran, taken as whole is obscure, is both linguistically and conceptually inconsequent, and it can be simply argued that the book is the product of belated editing of materials for different purposes.

[Rasputin]

But the taboo is that no Muslim should be allowed to blame the Koran for contradictions or mistakes; therefore, these kinds of problems are sometimes interrelated and rephrased by “modern” Muslims so that the original meaning becomes different from the interpretation. For example, Muhammad Abduh, the founder of modernism in Egypt, interprets Jinn as microbe (though existence of Jinn with its myths and fables were traditional beliefs of the Arab pagans and has been mentioned many times in the Koran as an equivalent living being to man). In another verse, God says, “And I created not the Jinns and humans except they worship me”.

Though religion’s teachings of the creation scenario and any scientific theory are fundamentally unbridgeable, their interpretation says it all happened several thousand years ago, and it took six literal days to complete. Some other “modern” Muslims do not deny the whole scheme from Big Bang, or from the singled-celled organism to homo sapiens, but instead they are grotesquely attempting to patch up the verses of the Koran with established sciences like evolution, the theory of relativity, aerodynamics, and quantum theory to prove that Islam is the final solution.

A religious six days Creation and one that has simultaneously taken about 15 billion years (Big Bang) is the slickest bridge-building of all. These pseudo-intellectuals engineered bridges between Islam and modern sciences to explain the origin of all that exists. A religious explanation of a scientific fact is a flagrant abuse of sciences for the use of religion and to the detriment of fact.

[Rasputin]

ONE CANNOT emphasize too much the distinction between Islam--plain Islam--and its fundamentalist version. Islam is the religion of about one billion people and is a rapidly growing faith, particularly in Africa but also elsewhere in the world. The United States, for example, boasts almost a million converts to Islam (plus an even larger number of Muslim immigrants).

Islam's adherents find their faith immensely appealing, for the religion possesses an inner strength that is quite extraordinary. As a leading figure in the Islamic Republic of Iran maintains, "Any Westerner who really understands Islam will envy the lives of Muslims." Far from feeling embarrassed about its being temporally the last of the three major Middle Eastern monotheisms, Muslims believe that their faith improves on the earlier ones. In their telling, Judaism and Christianity are but defective variants of Islam, which is God's final, perfect religion.

Contributing to this internal confidence is the memory of outstanding achievements during Islam's first six or so centuries. Its culture was the most advanced, and Muslims enjoyed the best health, lived the longest, had the highest rates of literacy, sponsored the most advanced scientific and technical research, and deployed usually victorious armies. This pattern of success was evident from the beginning: in A.D. 622 the Prophet Muhammad fled Mecca as a refugee, only to return eight years later as its ruler. As early as the year 715, Muslim conquerors had assembled an empire that extended from Spain in the west to India in the east. To be a Muslim meant to belong to a winning civilization. Muslims, not surprisingly, came to assume a correlation between their faith and their worldly success, to assume that they were the favored of God in both spiritual and mundane matters.

And yet, in modern times battlefield victories and prosperity have been notably lacking. Indeed, as early as the thirteenth century, Islam's atrophy and Christendom's advances were already becoming discernible. But, for some five hundred years longer, Muslims remained largely oblivious to the extraordinary developments taking place to their north. Ibn Khaldun, the famous Muslim intellectual, wrote around the year 1400 about Europe, "I hear that many developments are taking place in the land of the Rum, but God only knows what happens there!"

Such willful ignorance rendered Muslims vulnerable when they could no longer ignore what was happening around them. Perhaps the most dramatic alert came in July 1798, when Napoleon Bonaparte landed in Egypt--the center of the Muslim world--and conquered it with stunning ease. Other assaults followed over the next century and more, and before long most Muslims were living under European rule. As their power and influence waned, a sense of incomprehension spread among Muslims. What had gone wrong? Why had God seemingly abandoned them?

The trauma of modern Islam results from this sharp and unmistakable contrast between medieval successes and more recent tribulations. Put simply, Muslims have had an exceedingly hard time explaining what went wrong. Nor has the passage of time made this task any easier, for the same unhappy circumstances basically still exist. Whatever index one employs, Muslims can be found clustering toward the bottom--whether measured in terms of their military prowess, political stability, economic development, corruption, human rights, health, longevity or literacy. Anwar Ibrahim, the former deputy prime minister of Malaysia who now languishes in jail, estimates in The Asian Renaissance (1997) that whereas Muslims make up just one-fifth of the world's total population, they constitute more than half of the 1.2 billion people living in abject poverty. There is thus a pervasive sense of debilitation and encroachment in the Islamic world today. As the imam of a mosque in Jerusalem put it not long ago, "Before, we were mast ers of the world and now we're not even masters of our own mosques."

SEARCHING FOR explanations for their predicament, Muslims have devised three political responses to modernity--secularism, reformism and Islamism. The first of these holds that Muslims can only advance by emulating the West. Yes, the secularists concede, Islam is a valuable and esteemed legacy, but its public dimensions must be put aside. In particular, the sacred law of Islam (called the Shari'a)--which governs such matters as the judicial system, the manner in which Muslim states go to war, and the nature of social interactions between men and women--should be discarded in its entirety. The leading secular country is Turkey, where Kemal Ataturk in the period 1923-38 reshaped and modernized an overwhelmingly Muslim society. Overall, though, secularism is a minority position among Muslims, and even in Turkey it is under siege.

Reformism, occupying a murky middle ground, offers a more popular response to modernity. Whereas secularism forthrightly calls for learning from the West, reformism selectively appropriates from it. The reformist says, "Look, Islam is basically compatible with Western ways. It's just that we lost track of our own achievements, which the West exploited. We must now go back to our own ways by adopting those of the West." To reach this conclusion, reformers reread the Islamic scriptures in a Western light. For example, the Koran permits a man to take up to four wives--on the condition that he treat them equitably. Traditionally, and quite logically, Muslims understood this verse as permission for a man to take four wives. But because a man is allowed only one in the West, the reformists performed a sleight of hand and interpreted the verse in a new way: the Koran, they claim, requires that a man must treat his wives equitably, which is clearly something no man can do if there is more than one of them. So, they conclude, Islam prohibits more than a single wife.

Reformists have applied this sort of reasoning across the board. To science, for example, they contend Muslims should have no objections, for science is in fact Muslim. They recall that the word algebra comes from the Arabic, al-jabr. Algebra being the essence of mathematics and mathematics being the essence of science, all of modern science and technology thereby stems from work done by Muslims. So there is no reason to resist Western science; it is rather a matter of reclaiming what the West took (or stole) in the first place. In case after case, and with varying degrees of credibility, reformists appropriate Western ways under the guise of drawing on their own heritage. The aim of the reformists, then, is to imitate the West without acknowledging as much. Though intellectually bankrupt, reformism functions well as a political strategy.

[Rasputin]

The Ideological Response

THE THIRD response to the modern trauma is Islamism, the subject of the remainder of this essay. Islamism has three main features: a devotion to the sacred law, a rejection of Western influences, and the transformation of faith into ideology.

Islamism holds that Muslims lag behind the West because they're not good Muslims. To regain lost glory requires a return to old ways, and that is achieved by living fully in accordance with the Shari'a. Were Muslims to do so, they would once again reside on top of the world, as they did a millennium ago. This, however, is no easy task, for the sacred law contains a vast body of regulations touching every aspect of life, many of them contrary to modern practices. (The Shari'a somewhat resembles Jewish law, but nothing comparable exists in Christianity.) Thus, it forbids usury or any taking of interest, which has deep and obvious implications for economic life. It calls for cutting off the hands of thieves, which runs contrary to all modern sensibilities, as do its mandatory covering of women and the separation of the sexes. Islamism not only calls for the application of these laws, but for a more rigorous application than ever before was the case. Before 1800, the interpreters of the Shari'a softened it somew hat. For instance, they devised a method by which to avoid the ban on interest. The fundamentalists reject such modifications, demanding instead that Muslims apply the Shari'a strictly and in its totality.

In their effort to build a way of life based purely on the Shar'i laws, Islamists strain to reject all aspects of Western influence--customs, philosophy, political institutions and values. Despite these efforts, they still absorb vast amounts from the West in endless ways. For one, they need modern technology, especially its military and medical applications. For another, they themselves tend to be modern individuals, and so are far more imbued with Western ways than they wish to be or will ever acknowledge. Thus, while the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was more traditional than most Islamists, attempted to found a government on the pure principles of Shiite Islam, he ended up with a republic based on a constitution that represents a nation via the decisions of a parliament, which is in turn chosen through popular elections--every one of these a Western concept. Another example of Western influence is that Friday, which in Islam is not a day of rest but a day of congregation, is now the Muslim equivalent of a sabb ath. Similarly, the laws of Islam do not apply to everyone living within a geographical territory but only to Muslims; Islamists, however, understand them as territorial in nature (as an Italian priest living in Sudan found out long ago, when he was flogged for possessing alcohol). Islamism thereby stealthily appropriates from the West while denying that it is doing so.

Perhaps the most important of these borrowings is the emulation of Western ideologies. The word "Islamism" is a useful and accurate one, for it indicates that this phenomenon is an "ism" comparable to other ideologies of the twentieth century. In fact, Islamism represents an Islamic-flavored version of the radical utopian ideas of our time, following Marxism-Leninism and fascism. It infuses a vast array of Western political and economic ideas within the religion of Islam. As an Islamist, a Muslim Brother from Egypt, puts it, "We are neither socialist nor capitalist, but Muslims"; a Muslim of old would have said, "We are neither Jews nor Christians, but Muslims."

Islamists see their adherence to Islam primarily as a form of political allegiance; hence, though usually pious Muslims, they need not be. Plenty of Islamists seem in fact to be rather impious. For instance, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York, Ramzi Yousef, had a girlfriend while living in the Philippines and was "gallivanting around Manila's bars, strip joints and karaoke clubs, flirting with women." From this and other suggestions of loose living, his biographer, Simon Reeve, finds "scant evidence to support any description of Yousef as a religious warrior." The FBI agent in charge of investigating Yousef concluded that, "He hid behind a cloak of Islam."

On a grander level, Ayatollah Khomeini hinted at the irrelevance of faith for Islamists in a letter to Mikhail Gorbachev early in 1989, as the Soviet Union was rapidly failing. The Iranian leader offered his own government as a model: "I openly announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the greatest and most powerful base of the Islamic world, can easily help fill up the ideological vacuum of your system." Khomeini here seemed to be suggesting that the Soviets should turn to the Islamist ideology--converting to Islam would almost seem to be an afterthought.

Contrary to its reputation, Islamism is not a way back; as a contemporary ideology it offers not a means to return to some old-fashioned way of life but a way of navigating the shoals of modernization. With few exceptions (notably, the Taliban in Afghanistan), Islamists are city dwellers trying to cope with the problems of modern urban life--not people of the countryside. Thus, the challenges facing career women figure prominently in Islamist discussions. What, for example, can a woman who must travel by crowded public transportation do to protect herself from groping? The Islamists have a ready reply: she should cover herself, body and face, and signal through the wearing of Islamic clothes that she is not approachable. More broadly, they offer an inclusive and alternative way of life for modern persons, one that rejects the whole complex of popular culture, consumerism and individualism in favor of a faith-based totalitarianism.

[Rasputin]

Deviations From Tradition

WHILE Islamism is often seen as a form of traditional Islam, it is something profoundly different. Traditional Islam seeks to teach humans how to live in accord with God's will, whereas Islamism aspires to create a new order. The first is self-confident, the second deeply defensive. The one emphasizes individuals, the latter communities. The former is a personal credo, the latter a political ideology.

The distinction becomes sharpest when one compares the two sets of leaders. Traditionalists go through a static and lengthy course of learning in which they study a huge corpus of information and imbibe the Islamic verities much as their ancestors did centuries earlier. Their faith reflects more than a millennium of debate among scholars, jurists and theologians. Islamist leaders, by contrast, tend to be well educated in the sciences but not in Islam; in their early adulthood, they confront problems for which their modern learning has failed to prepare them, so they turn to Islam. In doing so they ignore nearly the entire corpus of Islamic learning and interpret the Koran as they see fit. As autodidacts, they dismiss the traditions and apply their own (modern) sensibilities to the ancient texts, leading to an oddly Protestant version of Islam.

The modern world frustrates and stymies traditional figures who, educated in old-fashioned subjects, have not studied European languages, spent time in the West, or mastered its secrets. For example, traditionalists rarely know how to exploit the radio, television and the Internet to spread their message. In contrast, Islamist leaders usually speak Western languages, often have lived abroad, and tend to be well versed in technology. The Internet has hundreds of Islamist sites. Francois Burgat and William Dowell note this contrast in their book, The Islamist Movement in North Africa (1993):

The village elder, who is close to the religious establishment and knows little of Western culture (from which he refuses technology a priori) cannot be confused with the young science student who is more than able to deliver a criticism of Western values, with which he is familiar and from which he is able to appropriate certain dimensions. The traditionalist will reject television, afraid of the devastating modernism that it will bring; the Islamist calls for increasing the number of sets ... once he has gained control of the broadcasts.

Most important from our perspective, traditionalists fear the West while Islamists are eager to challenge it. The late mufti of Saudi Arabia, 'Abd al-'Aziz Bin-Baz, exemplified the tremulous old guard. In the summer of 1995, he warned Saudi youth not to travel to the West for vacation because "there is a deadly poison in travelling to the land of the infidels and there are schemes by the enemies of Islam to lure Muslims away from their religion, to create doubts about their beliefs, and to spread sedition among them." He urged the young to spend their summers in the "safety" of the summer resorts in their own country.

Islamists are not completely impervious to the fear of these schemes and lures, but they have ambitions to tame the West, something they do not shy from announcing for the whole world to hear. The most crude simply want to kill Westerners. In a remarkable statement, a Tunisian convicted of setting off bombs in France in 1985-86, killing thirteen, told the judge handling his case, "I do not renounce my fight against the West which assassinated the Prophet Muhammad. We Muslims should kill every last one of you [Westerners]." Others plan to expand Islam to Europe and America, using violence if necessary. An Amsterdam-based imam declared on a Turkish television program, "You must kill those who oppose Islam, the order of Islam or Allah, and His Prophet; hang or slaughter them after tying their hands and feet crosswise... as prescribed by the Shari'a." An Algerian terrorist group, the GIA, issued a communique in 1995 that showed the Eiffel Tower exploding and bristled with threats:

We are continuing with all our strength our steps of jihad and military attacks, and this time in the heart of France and its largest cities.... It's a pledge that [the French] will have no more sleep and no more leisure and Islam will enter France whether they like it or not.

The more moderate Islamists plan to use non-violent means to transform their host countries into Islamic states. For them, conversion is the key. One leading American Muslim thinker, Isma'il R. AlFaruqi, put this sentiment rather poetically: "Nothing could be greater than this youthful, vigorous and rich continent [of North America] turning away from its past evil and marching forward under the banner of Allahu Akbar [God is great]."

This contrast not only implies that Islamism threatens the West in a way that the traditional faith does not, but it also suggests why traditional Muslims, who are often the first victims of Islamism, express contempt for the ideology. Thus, Naguib Mahfouz, Egypt's Nobel Prize winner for literature, commented after being stabbed in the neck by an Islamist: "I pray to God to make the police victorious over terrorism and to purify Egypt from this evil, in defense of people, freedom, and Islam." Tujan Faysal, a female member of the Jordanian parliament, calls Islamism "one of the greatest dangers facing our society" and compares it to "a cancer" that "has to be surgically removed." Cevik Bir, one of the key figures in dispatching Turkey's Islamist government in 1997, flatly states that in his country, "Muslim fundamentalism remains public enemy number one." If Muslims feel this way, so can non-Muslims; being anti- Islamism in no way implies being anti-Islam.

[Rasputin]

Islamism in Practice

LIKE OTHER radical ideologues, Islamists look to the state as the main vehicle for promoting their program. Indeed, given the impractical nature of their scheme, the levers of the state are critical to the realization of their aims. Toward this end, Islamists often lead political opposition parties (Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia) or have gained significant power (Lebanon, Pakistan, Malaysia). Their tactics are often murderous. In Algeria, an Islamist insurgency has led to some 70,000 deaths since 1992.

And when Islamists do take power, as in Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan, the result is invariably a disaster. Economic decline begins immediately. Iran, where for two decades the standard of living has almost relentlessly declined, offers the most striking example of this. Personal rights are disregarded, as spectacularly shown by the re-establishment of chattel slavery in Sudan. Repression of women is an absolute requirement, a practice most dramatically on display in Afghanistan, where they have been excluded from schools and jobs.

An Islamist state is, almost by definition, a rogue state, not playing by any rules except those of expediency and power, a ruthless institution that causes misery at home and abroad. Islamists in power means that conflicts proliferate society is militarized, arsenals grow, and terrorism becomes an instrument of state. It is no accident that Iran was engaged in the longest conventional war of the twentieth century (1980-88, against Iraq) and that both Sudan and Afghanistan are in the throes of decades-long civil wars, with no end in sight. Islamists repress moderate Muslims and treat non-Muslims as inferior specimens. Its apologists like to see in Islamism a force for democracy, but this ignores the key pattern that, as Martin Kramer points out, "Islamists are more likely to reach less militant positions because of their exclusion from power.... Weakness moderates Islamists." Power has the opposite effect.

Islamism has now been on the ascendant for more than a quarter century. Its many successes should not be understood, however, as evidence that it has widespread support. A reasonable estimate might find 10 percent of Muslims following the Islamist approach. Instead, the power that Islamists wield reflects their status as a highly dedicated, capable and well-organized minority. A little bit like cadres of the Communist Party, they make up for numbers with activism and purpose.

Islamists espouse deep antagonism toward non-Muslims in general, and Jews and Christians in particular. They despise the West both because of its huge cultural influence and because it is a traditional opponent--the old rival, Christendom, in a new guise. Some of them have learned to moderate their views so as not to upset Western audiences, but the disguise is thin and should deceive no one.

Daniel Pipes is director of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, and author of three books on Islam.

Pawns of Hope

There are those who understand how to manage hope, by keeping it at arm's length and worrying about its abuse. (The fantasy of perfection in the next world is certainly less dangerous than the fantasy of perfection in this world.) But others have a harder time. Hope fills them with impatience, and with certainty; and it looks to them less like a dream and more like a plan. Communism addressed itself most successfully to the pawns of hope. And there still is a certain nostalgia, even among some Western intellectuals, for the confidence and the righteousness of the Communist way, and the 'certainties' of Communist ideology, compared with the amoralities and the insecurities of a market-driven society and the ideology of Mammon. It is the requirement that they 'shut the door on utopia', as Malia puts it, that holds so many back from a complete rejection of the outlook that issued in all these catastrophes....

Arriving at a proper understanding of our century's disastrous entanglement in a criminal ideology, and atoning for the colossal cost in human lives and human misery (and for our complicity in it), is a more urgent task for the left than for the right. It is also an essential prerequisite for taking up anew, and with the proper anti-revolutionary modesty, the business of the betterment of the human condition.

Michael Scammell

[Rasputin]

Among the arguments put forward from the Ahl' ul-Sunnah to justify the adallah (justice) of the sahaba is that they complied the Qur'an. To question their trustworthiness is to question the authenticity of the Qur'an. Hence even if the sahaba are in the wrong, we must interpret in such a way to protect their integrity (even if it means degrading the position of Prophethood. (Examples of this exist in the chapter on the will of the Prophet (saw) for such an example.)

All the references from this section have been taken from Shah Waliyullah's book 'Izalatul Khifa' setting out the merits of the four rightly guided khalifas. Much of what Shah Waliyullah writes can also be found in Suyuti's analysis of the Qur'an 'al Itqan' - (Expect if otherwise indicated)

Shah Waliyullah writes:

"At the time of the death of the Prophet (saaws) the Qur'an had not been compiled in to a book form. Surah's and Ayats were scattered amongst the people" (sic).
Izalatul Khifa by Shah Waliyullah, Vol 4 p 252, publishers Kadheemi Kutubkhana, Karachi

He continues:

"Zaid bin Thabit narrates that "Abu Bakr as Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yama-ma had been killed (i.e. a number of the Prophet's companions who fought against Musalima). (I went to him) and found Umar bin Al Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), Umar has come to me and said "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra of the Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Qur'an by heart) on the day if the Battle of Yamama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected" (sic). I said to 'Umar "How can you do something that Allah's Apostle (saws) did not do so". Umar said by Allah this is a good project". 'Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good idea which 'Umar had realized. Then Abu Bakr said (to me), 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for 'Allah's Apostle (saws). So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of_ the Qur'an and collect it (in one book)". By Allah! If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to 'Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?". 'Abu Bakr replied, "By Allah it is a good project". 'Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of 'Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm leaf stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the Last Verse of Surat at Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al Ansari and I did not find it with anybody other than him....Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with 'Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar"
Izalatul Khifa by Shah Waliyullah, Vol 4 p 253, publishers Kadheemi Kutubkhana, Karachi
Sahih Bukhari, Arabic - English Volume 6 hadith number 509

Reading on:

"Anas bin Malik narrates that Hudhaifa came to see Uthman following the battle of Yaman. He expressed his concern at hearing people reciting the same verses of the Qur'an differently. Hadhrath Uthman asked Hadhrath Hafsa for the collated papers and then established a committee to compile the Qur'an comprising of Abdullah bin Zubayr, Saeed bin Aas, Abdur Rahman bin Harith, Zaid bin Thabit".
Izalatul Khifa by Shah Waliyullah, Vol 4 p 255, publishers Kadheemi Kutubkhana, Karachi
Sahih al Bukhari Hadith number 510

The Qur'an we have today in book form is the form collated by these 4 men.

Further more Sayyid Qutb writes:

"Tirmidhi reports that Abdullah ibn Abbas, a close and knowledgeable Companion of the Prophet, said that he had asked Uthman ibn Affan, the third Caliph who is universally recognized as having authorized the complication and canonisation of the Qur'anic text as we have today, why Surah 8, al-Anfal, consisting of less than 100 verses, was placed before Surah 9, al-Tawbah, which comprises over 100 verses, and which, unlike other Surah's, does not contain the usual opening phase of 'In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful?' He further enquired from him why the two Surah's were grouped with the long Surah that appear at the beginning of the Qur'an?

[Rasputin]

Uthman answered that the Prophet, God's peace and blessings be upon him, used at times receive verses or passages from several Surah's at the same time. He would call the scribes and instruct them to put specific verses at specified places in their respective Surah's. Al-Anfal was one of the earliest Surah's reveled at Madinah while al-Tawbah was one of the largest, but their subject matter was very similar that he suspected they might be one Surah. The Prophet passed away without clarifying the matter, and so Uthman placed them next to each other without separating them by the usual opening phrase, and grouped them with the long Surah's at the beginning of the Qur'an."
Fi Zilal al-Qur'an page 10 by Sayyid Qutb English translation published by The Islamic Foundation (1st edition 1999)

To summarize this position:



At the death of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) the Qur'an was scattered among the people.

Zaib bin Thabit regarded it easier to move one mountain then to compile the Qur'an.

That the Prophet[saww] died without clarifying the locations of the Surah of the Qur'an, so it was up to Uthman to decide the position of Surah al-Tawbah.

Hadhrath Umar was afraid that the Qur'an would be lost so he wanted to compile the Qur'an. Whilst the Prophet did not take heed of such a matter because he[saww] did not make any attempt to compile the Qur'an.


The Qur'an we have today in book form is the form collated by these 4 men.

We also have the following unnerving statement in the same book where we read the following:

"Hadhrath Ali compiled the Qur'an during the lifetime of the Prophet[saww] but Allah's taqdir prevented this from coming forward".
Izalatul Khifa, by Shah WaliyullahVolume 4 p 497

The above evidences from the most regarded sources including the Sahih of al-Bukhari begs the following rational questions:



If the Qur'an had not been compiled during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet then why did he during his farewell pilgrimage tell the companions the following:

"I am leaving amongst you two weighty things the Book of Allah (Kitabullah) and my Ahlulbayt"? (a mutawatir narration).

It is incorrect to call Qur'an al-kitab when it is merely in the people's memory. Furthermore, it is even inappropriate to apply the word al-kitab to the fragments written on palm branches, flat stones, and shoulder blades, expect when such an application is figurative and from particulate attention. But a word may not be used metaphorically without something to indicate that. The word al-kitab obviously signifies a single and united entity. It is not applied to a text which is scattered and not collected, let alone one which is unwritten and preserved in memory only.


Hadhrath Umar said "The Book of Allah is sufficient for us", when the Prophet (saaws) asked for a pen and paper on his deathbed did? Why say 'Book' and not just say Qur'an?


If the Qur'an was not compiled then whey did this verse descend "Today, I have perfected your religion and completed my bounty upon you, and I was satisfied that your religion be Islam" (Qur'an 5:3)? This is especially true when the narration of Tirmidhi states of the Prophet[saww] died without specifying the location of Surah al-Tawbah. Would this therefore not imply that Islam was incomplete because Muslims did not know the positions of the Surah's?


Why would the Holy Prophet leave the earth leaving this task unfulfilled - after all his prime purpose in the earthly sphere of existence was the deliverance of the Revelation to guide the billions who followed till the Day of Judgment. It would have been prudent to at the very least have one copy of the Qur'an preserved on indelible materials under his immaculate supervision, either compiled as the Revelation was issued from his tongue or at the end of his Mission.


Hadhrath Umar wanted to collate the Qur'an into book form because he was concerned that it would get lost. How can this be the case when Allah (swt) states categorically "Certainly We sent down the Dhikr (i.e., Qur'an), and certainly we shall protect it" (Qur'an 15:9), did Hadhrath Umar not have faith in this verse?


Why did Hadhrath Abu Bakr opt to choose Zaid bin Thabit as compiler when prominent Sahaba famed for their knowledge of the Qur'an such as Ubayy bin Ka'ab and Abdullah ibne Masud present. The latter were acknowledged as the foremost in their knowledge of the Qur'an excepting the Holy Prophet himself.


Hadhrath Uthman went even further and appointed, with the presence in Madina of some of the greats amongst the companions who were famed for their knowledge of the Qur'an, companions who were mere boys during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet. If one analyses their ages we learn Abdullah bin Zubayr was born in 2 Hijri, Saeed bin Aas in 1 Hijri, Abdur Rahman bin Harith in 1 Hijri, the eldest Zaid bin Thabit was 11 years of age at the time of the Hijrath. The last verse of the Qur'an descended in 10 Hijri that means all four were very young - in fact children, three of whom were still not even Baligh (attained the age of adolescence). Why were these four preferred to prominent sahaba such as Abdullah ibne Masud and Ubayy bin Ka'ab?


The learning of Abdullah bin Masud and Ubai bin Ka'b is preserved in the Sahih Bukhari where we read this hadith narrated by Abdullah bin Amr:

"I heard the Holy Prophet saying, 'Take (Learn) the Qur'an from four: Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh, and Ubai bin Ka'b'."
Sahih Bukhari Arabic - English Vol 6 hadith number 521

If this is indeed the case then why did neither Hadhrath Abu Bakr nor Hadhrath Uthman select any of these men to collate and compile the Qur'an?


Za'id began to compile the Qur'an during Hadhrath Abu Bakr's life. The task stopped and did not start again until Hadhrath Uthman's khilafath. Why was there this pause, especially since the mighty Hadhrath Umar prevented any civil instability in and around Madina, which was not the case with the first and third khalifas whose rules were marred by civil war in and around Madina? What more tranquil, relatively speaking, an opportunity, especially since the compilation of this Qur'an was the suggestion of Hadhrath Umar himself - why this gap period of in excess of no less than 10 years? When Hadhrath Umar was so concerned that the Qur'an be collated why did he not ensure that the task was completed during his ten year reign? He said that he was worried that reciters were dying on the battlefield. Many more wars occurred during his own khilafath so why did he lose that concern?


Rather than go to the extraordinary length of appointing a four man committee to collate the Qur'an in to book fashion, a pain staking process would it not have been easier to use the Qur'an that had been compiled by Hadhrath Ali (as)?

Here are a further to questions for our Salafi brothers:


Did the Sahaba not commit bidah by compiling the Qur'an when the Prophet (S) did not?


Are you not committing bidah by keeping the Qur'an at home when according to Sahih al Bukhari did NOT compile the Word of Allah (swt) in Book form? If all bidah's are in the fire then is this bidah not also in the fire?

[Rasputin]

Clearly, this makes no sense. It is a gross slander to suggest that the Prophet[saww] would fail to collate the revelation in to a book form. We believe that he arranged for the compilation during his lifetime - this is simple rationality - and entrusted the Gate of Knowledge Imam Ali (as) with the task, as confirmed by Shah Waliyullah. To suggest that this did not happen because Allah (swt) did not want this compilation makes no sense. How could Imam Ali (as) be removed from this instrumental role when the Prophet[saww] had stated:

"Ali is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with Ali, they will never separate until they reach me at the Fountain of Kauthar".
Al Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 3 p 124

Compare the enormous reservation expressed by Za'id bin to the challenge of Imam Ali (as):

"Ask me about the Book of Allah, because there is no Ayah but that I know whether it was revealed at night or in daytime, on the plain or in the mountain"
History of the Khailfa's who took the right way by Jalaladeen Suyuti, English translation by Abdassamad Clarke, p 194

The Wahabie scholar Shah Ismail Shaheed expands on this point to an even greater depth:

"Imamate is the Shadow of the Prophethood. The Imam's leadership is openly declared. Whereas history provides evidence of Saints that remained silent, the Imam announces whatever powers he possesses as Imam Ali did when he declared 'I am the Sidiq al Akbar (The Great Truthful One) and whoever declares this after me is a liar and I am the talking Qur'an".
Munsub e Imamate by Shah Ismail Shaheed page 69

To summarize we can understand this to be an attempt to lessen the honour and prestige of the Holy Prophet[saww] and Imam Ali (as) by giving the role of the collection of the Qur'an to the sahaba (even though the Qur'an was completed during the Prophet[saww] time).

The issue so alarmed the Sunni scholar Mahmud Abu Riyyah that he wrote the following:

"The strangest thing and embarrassing point is that they have never even included the name of Ali within those encharged with collecting and writing down the Qur'an, neither during the reign of Abu Bakr nor that of Uthman! Mentioning instead the name of those lower than him in degrees of knowledge and fiqh! Was Ali unable to undertake such a task! Or was he among those untrustworthy men? Or among those who were incompetent to be consulted or committed to shoulder this responsibility?

While in fact reason and logic necessitate that Ali should be the foremost and most competent man entrusted with this job, due to possessing attributes and merits of which all other Companions were deprived. He was reared and grown up under the care of the Prophet [saww], living long under his protection, attending the Wahi from the first days of revelation up to the day of cessation, in a way that he did not miss even one of his verse?!

So if he was not to be called for such a critical task, what thing else would he be called for?!

And if they invented justifications for ignoring him (Imam Ali) in regard of the caliphate of Abu Bakr, never consulting him or seeking him or seeking his opinion about it, what excuse they can give for not inviting him to the task of writing the Qur'an? Is there any logical reason for this behavior? What judgement can be issued by any just judge? What a surprising matter it is, and we have nothing to say but: May God help you O Ali! They have not treated you with equity in anything!"
Adwa' ala' al-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah (lights on the Muhammadan Sunnah) page 300, by Mahmud Abu Riyyah - English edition published by Ansariyan publications 1999

If Imam Ali had collected the Qur'an during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet [saww], it is clear that he must have done so under the specific command of the Holy Prophet. The question now arises - why, after the death of the Holy Prophet, was this version not taken as the official version by Hadhrath Abu Bakr? There is left little room but to contemplate the fact that this was another step in the conspiracy against the family to separate the Qur'an from the Ahlulbayt so that no one turns to them for guidance. This was, in other words, a form of ostracization, one that in fact amounted to censorship of the Qur'an till the state had officially eliminated Imam Ali from any claim towards its compilation, an achievement they would take the credit for, and one that if acknowledged would have brought the masses to Imam Ali and not to them for guidance. The khilafath of man had originated in the connivance of men to establish an alternative form of khilafath to that intended by the Holy Prophet. This khilafath was in opposition to that intended by the Holy Prophet, which had been a khilafath that was from a lineage within the family of the Holy Prophet, a lineage that also linked to the Qur'an. The khilafath had been snatched from the family. The other easy means of approach for guidance, the Qur'an, was also snatched.

The state took the Book and monopolized its production, distribution and took lofty credit for the achievement, credit that exists to this day when we still hear that it was Hadhrath Uthman who finally compiled the Qur'an. It is also self-evident in this premise that if Imam Ali (as)'s versions had been taken then people would turn to him to seek clarification on verses this would undermine their positions as Leaders of the State - for example the Qur'anic verses of appointment, and further notice certain departures of the first three khalifas from the Book. It was a minority, the earliest Shi'i, who gathered with Imam Ali took him as the interpreter of the Holy Qur'an - seeking guidance from his copy. The majority was left without a Qur'an for 20 years after the death of the Holy Prophet. This is a staggering fact. The Shi'i have held to the Qur'an through the family exactly as instructed by the Holy Prophet, and without intermission. The majority had absolutely no Qur'an in any Muslim house for 20 years - a whole generation, the first Muslims born into a world from which the Seal of Messengers had departed - without a Qur'an amongst them.

The 2 copies of the Qur'an were of course preserved by Allah - since Allah writes that He has preserved His dhikr in the Qur'an - there was no difference on this between the Qur'an as compiled by Imam Ali and that compiled by Hadhrath Uthman - but the fact remains - the followers of Imam Ali received guidance through the Qur'an from the very moment of the death of the Holy Prophet. The clarity of the Shi'i vision is unfolding. The conclusions of this section are quite clear:



The Qur'an is with Ali and Ali is with the Qur'an.


The Shi'i, being the party of Imam Ali, have had uninterrupted communion with the Word of Allah.


The Shi'i and only the Shi'i can claim this amongst all Muslims.

[Inquisitor]

This article was indeed one of the funniest articles that I have ever read in my life, written by an ignorant man who has no knowledge of Holy Quran and prefers to take verses " out of Context ".

There is no verse that mentiones 72 virgins in Islam. It is a myth. No such a thing in Quran and in Shia books and major Sunni schools of thought.
It is one of Wahhabi's ideology. (note Shias don't even consider them muslims)
Fact: they are minority in Islamic world

I don't know where to start the debate. If you are willing to, let's go one by one.

Wassalam

[Rasputin]

You can start to debate when you are ready to respect all opinion by the other users ! Please respect us and respect the rules of this Forum.If you don't like the thread,don't read it.

Thank you .

[Inquisitor]

It is called freedom of speech which is promoted in the west (ofcourse in a respectful manner), I have read forum rules and so far I haven't broke any rules as far as I know. If I have disrespected anyone which I believe I haven't, may Allah (swt) put his curse upon me.
Please show me the post!!!

You said: If you don't like the thread,don't read it

Well, You tell me, If there are many threads about Islam written by well known muslim Scholars; Do you read them or not, eventhough if you don't like them and you may oppose them as well.
Same case applies to me.

Perhaps you could have said If you don't like the thread, don't Post

Anyway If you think verses of Quran contradicts one another or can be proven wrong by today's science, feel free to bring it on.

[Inquisitor]

@ Redwine

One of your article said

Islam definitely is not compatible with logic

Fundamental logic deals with existence, non-existence, truth and false and the lather three are our only invented in mind. Thus whenever we question existence or truth of something we are dealing with the most fundamental thing in universe which means our arguments can not have any moderation.
Relative to Redwine and your articles these rules may be absurd, to me they are perfect, all of them. Know that your logic and mine function just the same way. Our differences are not in logic itself but in belief. Logic functions in accordance to our beliefs.

[Inquisitor]

Responding Ali1100

The article that you provided says

تناقض های داخلی تازینامه؛ دشواریهای قرآن.


1) حسابرسی عجیب الله

(سوره 4 آیه 11-12) و (سوره 4 آیه 176) در مورد قوانین وراثت صحبت میکند. اگر یک مرد فوت شود، و از او سه دختر و دو والد و یک همسر باقی بماند؛ دختران 2/3 سهم، والد ها 1/3 سهم (هردو بر اساس سوره 4 آیه 11) و همسر 1/8 سهم (بر اساس سوره 4 آیه 12) از ارث را دریافت میکند که از میزان ارث بیشتر میشود.

مثال دوم، مردی فوت میشود و از او یک مادر و یک همسر و دو خواهر باقی میماند، مادر 1/3 سهم (سوره 4 آیه 11) همسر 1/4 (سوره 4 آیه 12) و خواهران 2/3 (سوره 4 آیه 176) که مجموع آنها 15/12 کل ارث است

[zubin]

Inquisitor... they don't always care about the credibility of their sources here. I would go as far as saying that the collection of cheap entertainment peices that mask themselves as logical in fact reinforce a cult mentality. I was personally told I did could not understand things because I used logic to disagree with some of the views here.

That being said, a cult is weak anyway and there can be logical discussion here too. Through logic we can find truth and solutions to human problems, and I'm not talking metaphysics, but practical issues like today's political atmosphere.

In my experience, logic has been very fruitful when engaging in discussion. However, I noticed your method of logic... and am wondering if it is the most effective kind in today's world. Are you familiar with the 'elenchus' method of logic which was used by Socrates by any chance? It involves following up a person's belief with questions and letting them contradict themselves, with you simply illuminating their contradiction and ignorance. It differs from Plato's logical method and the mainstream Islamic logic that came after... but is definately within the realm of universal human nature and understanding.

Read some of Plato's "early dialogues" which have Socrates as the protagonist. You'll be amazed at how effective this method is and how applicable it is to today's world. It might be inferior to other methods in different circumstances, but I think it superior in today's world... If you ever have time, let me know what you think...