i guess i should take a stab at this given that i recently took a class by a well-known American-Muslim scholar, Yasir Qadhi. He's a native Houstonian, graduated from UH, went to Medina University to study traditional Islamic sciences, and he is now getting his phd in islamic studies from yale. he taught a course here in houston about the various sciences of the quran. he briefly addressed the issue of the satanic verses, so i'll copy and paste straight from my notes from the class and try to briefly summarize his argument. i'm a running a fever right now, so please bear with me. I'm copying my notes as is, and I'll put an asterik where I add additional comments to clarify what my notes are referring to. The Satanic Verses • Called “the story of the pelicans” • Brought in western circulation in 1890 • Montgomery Watt in 1905, coined the term the Satanic Verses • Recent PhD at Harvard did a thesis on this • They refer to an alleged incident in the Makkan stage. It has been reported in a number of different versions. Depending on your version, you get a different story. • Saheeh Bukhari version-When the Prophet was reciting Surah Al-Najm, he reached the end of the surah. It was in the ka’aba, pretty much everyone well-known in Makkah was there. When he got to the last verse, the Prophet made prostration, and all of the Muslims prostrated behind him, and so did the pagans. One elderly person was the one who didn’t prostrate. The man put some sand on his forehead and said this is my prostration. o The above was the entire story according to Bukhari, and in the entire hadith literature this is it. • There are other versions in more obscure books, but they are still Islamic works. Even within these works you have variations. • The most radical version is that the Prophet wanted to bring the Quraysh (*the most powerful tribe in Arabia) closer to Islam with a compromise. Shaytaan (*satan) came to him in the guise of Jibreel (*gabriel) and inspired him with certain verses. It happened while Jibreel was reciting to him new verses. So it is saying that Shaytaan inserted some verses while Jibreel is teaching Muhammad. Very strange. He is alleged to have said, “Have you not seen Al-Lat and Al-Uzza and the third idol? These are the noble pelicans and their intercession is highly prized and wanted.” The italics is the satanic addition. The mushrikoon said indeed the compromise has been reached, and they prostrated with the Muslims. Jibreel came again to recite Al-Najm again, and Muhammad asked where are the crane verses? Jibreel said I never gave you any crane verses? o Orientalists say Muhammad did it on purpose to get Quraysh to agree with him because he wanted their approval, but he retracted the next day because of pressure from Muslims. o Orientalists say no Muslim would fabricate this about Muhammad, so it must be true. • At-Tabari’s version (*At-Tabari is one of the most well known scholars of Islamic exegis, aka tafsir)-Muhammad received surah Al-Najm as it stands. When he was reciting it to the Quraysh, when he got to this portion, Shaytaan (*satan) yelled out the Satanic verses and Muhammad never said it. The Quraysh believed Muhammad said it. The truth was then exposed later on. • Surah Hajj:52, is evidence that something strange happened. وَمَآ أَرۡسَلۡنَا مِن قَبۡلِكَ مِن رَّسُولٍ۬ وَلَا نَبِىٍّ إِلَّآ إِذَا تَمَنَّىٰٓ أَلۡقَى ٱلشَّيۡطَـٰنُ فِىٓ أُمۡنِيَّتِهِۦ فَيَنسَخُ ٱللَّهُ مَا يُلۡقِى ٱلشَّيۡطَـٰنُ ثُمَّ يُحۡڪِمُ ٱللَّهُ ءَايَـٰتِهِۦۗ وَٱللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ۬ (٥٢) Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise; (52) • One of the most famous living scholars of Quranic exegesis (tafsir) refuted it. He said: o not found in any authentic book of hadeeth or seerah (works discussing the life of the prophet) with a strong chain of narration o there are many contradictory versions o issue of timing, Jibreel stops, Shaytaan starts, Shaytaan stops, Jibreel starts. Where did this pause and interruption occur? *He's referring to the idea that if this did indeed occur, it means that Angel Gabriel (Jibreel) inspired Muhammad with the verses from God, and then Gabriel stopped reciting. Then Satan (shaytaan) started reciting to Muhammad under the guise of being Gabriel, and then he stopped. And then Gabriel started again with more verses from God. * o We have an authentic version with Bukhari *Bukhari is a collection of hadeeth, and it is known as the most authentic book of hadeeth, meaning there are no known fabricated hadith in Bukhari* • As for the verse in surah Hajj, it does not have to be linked to this story. It could very well mean Shaytaan tries to interrupt the revelation, but Allah won’t let it happen. *The basic idea is that in the saheeh (authentic) books of hadith, there is no mention of anything strange happening as the story of the satanic verses suggests. Some other obscure non-hadith books, though they are indeed Islamic works, do mention this story, but even these narrations of the story vary depending on which book one references. The infamous Satanic Verses draws from the most radical version of the story, and some orientalists claim that this is what really happened. i know this is a messy post, but hopefully that offers some clarification. if some terms don't make sense, look them up on wikipedia (search: satanic verses, saheeh bukhari, etc.)
Rhester: <br> I was trying to imply those things be applicable to people who already meet the criteria of being pious. <br> It's just that, if you follow the model of Jesus, and live life like he lived his, you are a good person. Because, the qualities that Jesus had apply to all people, regardless of your religious preferences. He was humble, merciful, kind, giving, etc.. Which, is actually what we, as all humans should strive for. <br> I didn't mean to say that humans could be on God's level. But, if man is to follow in God's image, by virtue, God would be pleased (or at least to my understanding).
Orentalist is a pejorative term for any scholar of Islam who isn't a true believer. The equivalent would be American soldiers referring to every Arab as a "Hajji" or any other number of worse things. It isn't polite.
Oh, and it would probably help to understand where i am coming from if I made this clear. <br> I don't really know what my exact beliefs are in regards to God and faith. However, I use the Quran/Bible, and the lives of Jesus/Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) as a reference on how to live in a dignified, morally righteous manner. I see both of Their lives as a perfect example on how to be a good human being, and I think that's something that is upheld through time.
I agree with you and I was actually going beyond your intent. In the Christian perspective man needs a redeeming help from God, some would say moment by moment or daily or once for all, but none the less Jesus is a source of love and mercy that in most Christian context that is not found anywhere else. Striving for these qualities of Jesus is awesome and well presented by your post. And I genuinely believe God is pleased with that. I do believe that all men have the image of God in them and they have a longing for the Jesus 'model' of life; a pure love so to speak. I just would add that real love springs from the heart and in a Christian context mankind shares a marred or damaged heart- one more selfish than loving; it seems that man is bent toward selfishness and human pride. Jesus redeems the heart of man- the person we are inside. I think religion is selfish to an extent that it serves the plans and purposes of self fulfillment. Jesus is not like that. And I think there is a grace that Jesus offers us to set us free from these selfish motives. We don't become pious and holy because we follow the Christian religion or Christian teaching or dogmas of faith. We become more like Jesus as we humble ourselves to see His love and grace more clearly. Jesus reveals himself to those who seek him. I find good in all religions, truths, that has been pointed out. But I have only found Jesus in the Bible. I am not so concerned with the texts themselves, but the person revealed. I love Him.
hamza, I don't understand one thing. As I understand it (views are weird in Turkey) if you have access to the Quran, and you believe it, then you have to stick with it. The "people of the book" thing I havent heard. But I'm basically assuming that the rule applied only when Jews, Christians, etc didn't have proper access to information about Islam. For example, a guy living in a hut in China (a righteous guy as you said) can't be subject to the Bible if he's never been exposed to it. But if he were exposed to it and didn't accept Jesus completely, then what?
<br> Well, I was speaking from my own beliefs for the most part about those things. <br> However, from my understanding of the Quran the official stance is: <br> If you are born a Muslim, you must remain a Muslim, otherwise you become a non-believer. I think that is regardless of what religion you convert to. Because you have been exposed to "the truth" and the "word of God", you cannot ignore it. And, if you do (i.e. convert), you have gone against God. <br> Again, from a Muslim standpoint: <br> Yes, if you are "living in a hut in china" or something of the sort, and have no knowledge of religion, yet you live in a way that is "morally righteous", God will accept that. However, if you are exposed to a religion (Probably either Islam or Christianity) and blatantly ignore it, that is not accepted. Because you "ignore" God by rejecting the religion, you become a sinner by default. <br> At least, that is what I have understood...
thatboyz, that's one badass post my friend.. u broke things down very nicely.. to sum all of that up, DaDa, there is no such thing as "satanic verses", those are a result of pure imagination of very very very weak and untrusted sources.. Bukhari (and his student, "muslim") is the only thing that's 100% reliable, all else is basically imaginary/fake stuff.. the reason why this piece of $h!t Salman Rushdie wrote a book about it was to make some $$$$ .. he acts like he knows what the hell he's talking about but in reality he's an overrated version of a Bill O'Reilly (in terms of knowledge) I have a bunch of thoughts that relate to this thread, I will hopefully post first thing in the morning.
This is pretty absurd. This is like saying that piece of **** Solzhenitsyn got sent to the gulag on purpose so he could write One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and get rich. It goes to show that you don't know anything about him or his work, except what someone else has told you.
Granted, Rushdie is a terrific writer and I for one have always enjoyed reading whatever he writes and hearing his thoughts on a variety of issues. But what I do find somewhat funny is that so many people who are fans of his think that the Satanic Verses was somehow a valid critique of Islam, when it really was not, but instead is more of a reflection of their willingness to believe anything they perceive as a strike against the validity of Islam without really hearing what the other side has to say. As someone with Russian grandparents (and one Jewish parent) I will readily admit that there is a strong bias and widespread ignorance of all things Islamic in much of Europe and America. Now for the sake of disclosure, I am not Jewish myself and consider myself an agnostic, but have always been interested enough in the idea of a diety that I have read extensively about the major world religions (I find Buddhism probably to be the closest to my personal beliefs, but not enough to sway me one way or the other)
That is absurd and it only shows your complete bias and ignorance in this case. Rushdie is a true intellectual, and a GREAT writer, his literary work is both imaginative and provocative but there is a purpose behind them. If anything you can blame Iranian wackos and their fatwa for bringing him such infamy on a global scale.
my post was intended to shed some light on the topic for DD. personal opinions about salman rushdie are beside the point.
Was thinking about this on the bus this morning. Does this even constitute faith anymore? This could be a philosophical movement, an ethical modus operandi, in my opinion - taken at face value. Max - I'm sure you believe jesus died for your (and everyone's) sins - but ignoring that, does the above methodology of being "christian" really fit into the definition of "faith"? Outside of an assumed reward post-death, the above seems to me to be wholly independent of a supernatural requirement.
I think it takes some kinda faith in something...even if it's only in the value of the philosophy...to live this way. To talk about it in the abstract is one thing...I find it takes faith to attempt to live that way. EDIT: one other thought...my post you quoted is born out of my worldview which is entirely colored by how i see other human beings relative to how i believe God sees them. the very notion that every human being is created in the image of God is entirely grounded in faith. there are some faith traditions where that is not the case...where humans aren't seen as equals. outside of faith circles, there are many who would deeply struggle to really live out the idea that ALL people are to be treated with dignity and love. i would say that idea is pretty alien, frankly, to most of the world.
Why? What does faith supply to enable such a viewpoint? I hope you are not arguing that the altruism illuminated in your original post can only come about under the aspect of reward...
not at all...i'm not seeking after this for some reward...i've already been given the reward. i'm living in response to it...or trying to, anyway. my feeble attempts at righteousness are pretty small if you entertain the notion of a holy God. see my edit in the post above.
Ah - and here is our disagreement then. I don't think you need the above worldview to live a life as you described previously. Feel free to tell me why I am wrong. And thanks for the responses.
