&tRecently, I got an email from a friend who told me about an author who wrote that, for many Muslims, there is no more joy in Islam. I believe that is valid. For many people, there is no "sweetness" of faith, like the Prophet (pbuh) spoke about in a famous hadith. Many people will conclude that this is a fault of religion itself, most especially Islam. Yet that is a faulty conclusion.

Religion is supposed to serve the believer. It is supposed to support the believer on his or her journey on this earth back towards their Lord and Creator, where they truly belong. In fact, religion polishes the roughness out of the human heart so that the light of God both shines through and penetrates in. There should be so much joy in this process.

Yet, for many people, the reverse is true. The believer is supposed to serve religion. Religion is master, and the believer is servant. This is flawed, and the Qur'an tells me so:

Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion. (5:3)

The fact that God gave us the perfect law is described as "the full measure of [God's] blessings." Yet, why? Why is religion an enormous blessing for us? Because it helps guide us back to our Lord. That is the ultimate service for us.

When our father Adam (pbuh) slipped in the Garden, he estranged himself from God. Thus, Adam (pbuh) was bidden to live on earth and journey back to Him. This is a tough journey, and God knows this. Yet, He did not leave Adam (pbuh) - and by analogy all of us - completely alone to fend for himself (and ourselves). He sent guidance:

Yet if guidance does come to you from Me, then whoever follows My guidance will have nothing to fear and will not sorrow. (2:38)

And when we follow this guidance we are comforted, and we find happiness and joy. In fact, God calls the believers to enter into peace, which is what we will find when we follow His way:;blockquote>O believers, enter wholly into peace, and do not follow the footsteps of Satan, for he is an open enemy to you. (2:208)Many translators have used the word "Islam" as the translation for the Arabic silm, which is the word used in the verse. But, silm means "peace," and the use of the word seems to be much more broad and encompassing. This means to me that, if we follow God's way, we will have total peace in our hearts, and we will experience joy.

This process, in fact, is one of love. Following God's way is a process of falling in love with God. We get to know Him through knowing and experiencing His signs:

We will show them Our signs throughout the regions of the earth and in themselves, until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is witness to all things? (41:53)

And once we know Him, we cannot but love Him, most especially because we come to learn that He loved us first. And once we fall in love with the Precious, there is no turning back. We "enter into peace," and we experience joy. That is the essence of religion: the process of falling in love with God and entering into peace by following His guidance.

And, yes, that does include performing the acts of ritual prayer and ablution; abstaining from that which God commands; giving out of our wealth; fasting when God commands us to fast; journeying on the earth back to the Lord Himself. All these things we do because we love Him (because He loved us first).

The fact that someone does not derive joy from these things is not the fault of the religion, it is the fault of the person himself. Nevertheless, there are many Muslims who have begun to question the 'illah, or effective cause or reason behind, of some of Islam's most important religous practices. For instance, what is the 'illah of the five daily prayers? What is the 'illah of the fast of Ramadan? Of the zakah? Of the Hajj?

I do not think there is anything wrong with this type of questioning, so long as the intent behind the questioning is sincere. Truth does not fear investigation. Yet, God has already answered many of these questions already. The beauty of our Creator is that, when He sends forth a command, He usually explains why. In fact, we see that He gives the 'illah behind our ritual practices:

Five daily prayers: I am the God; there is no deity but Me; so serve Me, and practice prayer to remember Me. (20:14) Also read: Recite what has been revealed to you from the Book, and pray regularly; for prayer restrains from that which is abominable and disavowed. And remembrance of God is even greater. And God knows what you do. (29:45)

Fast of Ramadan: O believers, fasting is prescribed for you, as it was prescribed for those before you, that you may be conscientious. (2:183) Also read: The month of Ramadan is the one in which the Qur'an was revealed, as guidance for humanity, and demonstrations in the way of guidance and discrimination. So whoever among you is present in that month should fast... (2:185)

Zakah: Take contributions from their wealth, to purify them and justify them thereby; and pray for them. Indeed, your prayer is an asylum for them. For God is all-hearing, all-knowing. (9:103)

Hajj: Indeed, the first temple set up for humankind was the one at Mecca, as blessing and guidance for all beings, in which are evident signs; it is the place where Abraham stood, and whoever enters it is secure. And it is a duty of humanity to God that whoever is able to make a pilgrimage to the temple. And if any refuse, well, God in independent of all worlds . (3:96-97)

The Lord God has also explained why He forbade fornication and games of chance even though He has no reason to do so:

And do not approach adultery, for it is an obscenity and an evil way. (17:32)

Believers - wine and gambling and idolatry and divination are nothing by abomination from the work of Satan, so avoid them that you may thrive. Satan only wants to sow hostility and hatred among you with wine and gambling, and to hinder you from remembrance of God, and from prayer. So will you refrain? (5:90-91)

Even when it comes to believing in His oneness, He never says, "I am One because I say so." No. He takes the time to explain why, even though He has every right to say "because I said so." Take this passage as a prime example:

Say, Praise be to God, and peace upon the servants God has chosen. Is God better, or what they associate with God? Or, who created the heavens and the earth, and rains water from the sky for you? With it We produce orchards full of beauty, whose trees you could not produce. Is there a deity besides God? No, but they are a deviant people.

Or, who made the earth steady, and put rivers in its clefts, and set mountains on it, and placed a partition between the two seas? Is there a deity besides God? No, but most of them do not know. Or, who answers the cry of the one hard pressed, and removes adversity, and makes you heirs of the earth? Is there a deity besides God? You hardly pay attention.

Or, who guides you in the darkness of the land and the sea, and who sends the winds as heralds of divine mercy? Is there a deity besides God? God transcends any association that they attribute. Or, who initiates creation and then repeats it; and who provides you sustenance from the sky and the earth? Is there a deity besides God? Say, "Bring your proof, if you are being truthful." (27:59-65)

See how God goes through a detailed exposition about why He is one God, even though, once again, He needs no reason to explain Himself to us. What an awesome God we have!

Despite these explanations, however, many Muslims seek to discern even further the 'illah behind the various practices of Islam. On one level, this is good, because upon reflection, one may find infinite reasons and benefits of the ritual practices of Islam. This will serve to strengthen the resolve of the believer to keep up the ritual practices out of love for God.

There are some, however, who reflect upon the possible 'illah of the ritual practice in order to invent "designer Islam," to justify their abandonment of the ritual practices. This is quite dangerous.

Thus, a person may say: "The ritual prayer is really a conversation between the believer and his or her Lord." This is true. Consequently, the person concludes, since he or she "talks" to God each day, there is no need to pray five times a day. "That's so seventh century," he or she may say. This same person may say: "Since the reason behind fasting is God consciousness, I do not need to fast because I am so conscious of God." Or, he may say: "My wealth is already pure, thus I do not need to pay the 2.5% Zakah."

This is "designer Islam," and unlike Coca-Cola, it is not the real thing. That sort of reasoning simply does not make any sense. If someone either does not, or can not, keep up the ritual practice, he or she should not justify their actions by coming up with an "Islam Vista." Islam does not need to be "updated," although the thinking and practices of a great many Muslims do.

I know this to be the case because of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He did, in fact, directly talk to God in the highest of heavens, where even the powerful Archangel Gabriel could not venture. In addition, God directly communicated to the Prophet (pbuh) through Gabriel over a period of 23 years. Yet, despite this, he (pbuh) never missed a ritual daily prayer. If anyone were to justify not having to pray because he "talks to God every day," it would be the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Yet, the Prophet prayed five times a day like the rest of us.

There was no human being that walked this earth who was not more conscious of God than the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Yet, he still fasted the month of Ramadan. There was no one who was as generous as the Prophet (pbuh), yet he still paid Zakah when it was due upon him. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) even performed the pilgrimage just before he died.

If the Prophet (pbuh), who was the most God-conscious, generous, pure, and pious man ever to walk the earth, never failed to perform the ritual practices of Islam, how can we even think of trying to justify doing the same by inventing a modern-day "designer Islam"? Yet, admittedly, those who continue to practice Islam as the Prophet (pbuh) practiced the religion are a tiny minority today.

This is immaterial. In fact, to be in this minority is laudable, because, God said that this minority will be among the "forefront" on Judgment Day:

And those in the forefront will precede: they will be the favorites in gardens of happiness, a number of the ancients, and a few of those of later times. (56:10-14)

I don't know about you, but I want to be among that "few."

Monte, have you read the passages in the Old testament in which God tells Jewish armies to massacre all civilians of the countries they conquer? Am I to presume this is a gentle and merciful slaughter? Is this tolerant genocide?

And tell me about the beliefs of the 10-15% of Members of the Israeli Knesset who belong to the 'religious' parties? What do they say about what should happen to non-Jews inside Israel? And what is their inspiration? The Simpsons? Franz Kafka novels?

I still maintain that the reason why 'moderates' in other religions are moderate is because they do not take instructions literally from any religious text. I admire Montedero for investing all this time in reading so many translations. In any other forum his point would have been addressed instead of these weak attempts to attack him or use ruses like asking 'what about the Jews and Christians?' to divert the attention from his question.

I think, the point Montedero is making is that Jews and Christians do not take the bible and Torah as an instruction manual to be followed by rote!

I notice a peculiar behavior in these so-called progressive Islamic people. They insist on saying they are not at all like the islamic fanatics but when it comes to actually saying where they diverge from the fanatics, all they can say is they don't blow themselves up like the crazies.

Other than saying they don't believe in violence, they seem to be in full agreement with the suicide bombers vis a vis the koran's meaning. Whether it is suppressing women's rights or insisting on sticking to rituals with fanatical obedience, they are absolutely in sync with the men and women of the Vest-Bomb cult! That is not enough.

'Christians' who don't go around shooting abortion clinic doctors but 'can understand' someone who does, and give shelter to such shooters, are as fanatic as the shooters.

In the same way, all these people who insist that the koran is the literal truth (and the only truth) but don't blow themselves up to prove it, are as bad as the al qaida nuts who do. Violence can be supported passively and nurtured without acting out. That is what makes islam a fertile ground for mad people who seem to sprout at regular intervals through out history.

Now, I am sure someone here will ask about Hitler and the Conquistadors and they would be right. Ask yourselves whether Islamic people of today want to go through what Hitler put the Germans through before realizing how stupid such absolutisms are.

Weisskopf:
"I admire Montedero for investing all this time in reading so many translations."

The three translations are simply cut and pasted from a web site. Any number of Islamic sites have the same three translations for any chapter or verse, in exactly the same format, in exactly the same order.

That he's read three, or twelve, or one, translation wouldn't make a difference. The fellow isn't interested in reading beyond the shallow, hand-picked verses taken out of context in a disjointed attempt to make the Qu'ran say something it doesn't say. Ask him, for instance, why he has to look on the other side of the Qu'ran to provide context for his reading of 8:55, when the immediate context provides all the qualification an accurate reading would require.

Weisskopf:
"Other than saying they don't believe in violence, they seem to be in full agreement with the suicide bombers vis a vis the koran's meaning. Whether it is suppressing women's rights or insisting on sticking to rituals with fanatical obedience, they are absolutely in sync with the men and women of the Vest-Bomb cult!"

That is woefully uninformed.

"In the same way, all these people who insist that the koran is the literal truth (and the only truth) but don't blow themselves up to prove it, are as bad as the al qaida nuts who do."

And so is that. Even if the first statement that all Muslims who believe in the Truth of Qu'ran believe it means the exact same thing was true, which it isn't, the second demonstrates a hamfisted equivocation. If I believed as some Islamic fascists believe, that all non-Muslims are the vilest of animals--a belief that isn't found in the Qu'ran no matter how hard they or Montedoro, and one wonders why they'd all think so alike--and yet committed no crime, you'd think I was somehow morally equivalent to a murderer? That's unbalanced, man.

To Abdiel:
How about giving some convincing contextual explanation instead of just indulging in childish name-calling? Please answer the question: Who, exactly, are the "vilest of creatures" and the "worst of beasts" that the Koran is referring to? For all of your hostility, you continually avoid answering this important question.

BTW, the reason for my taking those quotations from the Moslem-sponsored websites, is to prove that these translations are approved by Moslems and that the translations are in agreement with one another.

As for the Koranic definition of who is a believer (24.62) being found far from verses 8:55 and 98.6, you never explain the relevance of that fact. Does the definition of "believer" and "non-believer" change from one part of the Koran to another?

Now, what do you do with this one:
"The unbvelievers are your inveterate enemy." (4:101)? The Koran does not say "only some unbelievers", or "only the unbelievers whom Mohammed was fighting at a particular time". It says "The unbelievers", in general. If you believe that the Koran does not mean what it appears to mean, please tell us exactly what it does mean.

Montedoro:
"It seems obvious that the Koran is here referring to everyone who does not accept Islam."

Please qualify your statement: it seems obvious to you. It doesn't seem obvious to me, because that isn't what the Qu'ran says. The Qu'ran isn't known for mincing words, and if what it meant was "everyone who doesn't accept Islam," it would have said so.

"You are implying that there is some sort of significant difference between "disbelievers", "unbelievers" and non-Moslems. What is the difference?"

Already stated several times, Montedoro. Non-believer, non-Muslim, believer, and Muslim aren't mutually exclusive groups. Traits of one or several of these groups can exist in any given human at any given time.

"[24:62] defines precisely who is meant by believer."

But it does not define precisely what is meant by unbeliever as specified in 8:55. 8:53 thru 8:54 do, though, and are that verse's immediate context.

"Of course people are capable of changing, but so what? Why do you think that is relevant to 8:55 "

Because humanity's capacity for change is the central context of 8:55. It is those human beings who lock themselves out from change, who refuse to accept change, who believe they don't need to change, who are the subjects of God's admonition in 8:55--which you should know by now.

--A

To Abdiel:

So, you are saying that only those who refuse to accept change are the vilest of creatures? If the Koran, as you say, is so clear, why didn't the Koran say that only those who refuse to accept change are the vilest of creatures? But, it didn't say that. It said that unbelievers or disbelievers are the vilest of creatures. You, not the Koran, say that "unbelievers" means only those who do not accept change. Let us suppose for moment that your interpretation is a valid one. O.K., what sort of change do you think the Koran has in mind? Since the Koran uses the word "unbeliever", or something similar, surely the change it has in mind is the change from not accepting Islam to accepting Islam. Would you agree with that? Surely, it follows logically that those who do not change from non-Moslem to Moslem are the vilest of creatures. How can you explain it otherwise? If this is not what is meant, then what, in your opinion, is meant?

"I notice a peculiar behavior in these so-called progressive Islamic people. They insist on saying they are not at all like the islamic fanatics but when it comes to actually saying where they diverge from the fanatics, all they can say is they don't blow themselves up like the crazies."

Yes, of course, Weiss. We are all the same. That's why it's so easy to hate us. Really, we are all part of a huge conspiracy of fanaticism to destroy Western civilisation. That's why you should hate us in the same manner your deological ancestors have hated the Jews for 2,000 years.

We are all radical until we prove ourselves moderate enough or your liking. And the moon is made of green cheese.

Montedoro:
"If the Koran, as you say, is so clear, "

That's not exactly what I said--I said it doesn't mince words.

"why didn't the Koran say that only those who refuse to accept change are the vilest of creatures?"

It does. Read 8:53 thru 8:54.

"Surely, it follows logically that those who do not change from non-Moslem to Moslem are the vilest of creatures. How can you explain it otherwise? If this is not what is meant, then what, in your opinion, is meant?"

Again, read the passage, and what I originally wrote to you a week ago, which I believe answers that pretty well. If you still have questions, let me know--but preferably via email (you can get that via my profile), because I think we've clogged up this discussion enough.

Thanks,
A

To Abdiel:

No, what you wrote a few days ago does NOT answer the question pretty well. I need to hear from you exactly whom the Koran and you consider to be the vilest of creatures and the worst of animals. This is a perfectly good forum for you to give your answer because it affects more than just you and me.

Poor Monte. He's trying to convince us that his reading of the Qur'an is more authoritative than 1,400 years of exegesis and sacred jurisprudence. Keep trying, Monte!

Montedoro, now you're simply being difficult. But I'll indulge--for the last time. From what I'd written a week ago:

"Those who disbelieve are those unwilling to make changes in themselves--they're people who feel a sense of entitlement from this world and no accountability in the hereafter, which, according to God in the Qu'ran, is a hateful attitude that reflects directly on the individual. "

What part of that don't you understand? It is a direct reflection of 8:53-8:55, and if you cannot see that nor accept that, nor even appreciate how that's a valid viewpoint given the context of Qu'ran, even though it differs from the myopic, selective, uninclusive, and ultimately unenlightened reading you can't seem to get away from, I don't think there's anything more I can do for you.

--A

To Abdiel and Irfy:

Let us assume for the moment that your interpretation is correct and that the Koranic verse refers only to those who do not believe in a hereafter and not to all non-Moslems. There are hundreds of millions of people in this world who do not feel any accountability in the hereafter because they do not believe in such things. Why do you and other Moslems have such a hateful and dehumanizing attitude towards them merely because they do not feel a sense of accountability in the hereafter -- even though they may be perfectly kind and generous people in their life on earth?

Monte, how do you know what I think of kind people who don't profess belief in the hereafter? You've never met me. You don't know who I am. Yet you feel qualified to make definitive remarks about my attitudes toward people.

I think, Monte, you need to get some sleep. Which is also what I need. Hence, I'm sighning off.

Montedoro:
The Qur'anic verse doesn't refer to people who don't believe in the hereafter, and I haven't said that it does. It refers, as I stated, to people who have a sense of entitlement in this life and no sense of accountability in the hereafter--that is, people who don't believe they're answerable for what they do, and conduct themselves as if they're not. Which means such people, a subset of people who don't believe in the hereafter, are not perfectly kind and generous people in their life on Earth. And if you'd bother reading 8:53 thru 8:55 like I'd suggested a week ago, you'd see that the passage doesn't refer to people who are kind and generous, yet don't believe in accountability in the hereafter (ie, permanent accountability before God, rather than mutable accountability before other humans). It refers to people who are tyrants, brutes, thugs, and thieves, who believe the world belongs to them and that their subjects owe their lives to them. And that's very obvious from the context of the verse 8:55 and revealed through 8:53-8:54--as I've been saying for a week now. If you're not prepared to read it--and I'm convinced you're not--you're not prepared to accept any other reading of Qu'ran than that one that's already been given to you. But I do hope you remember that the people who gave it to you gave it to you for a reason, and that reason had nothing to do with understanding what it means.

--A

To Abdiel:
As a matter of fact I did read 8:51-54. Those passages emphasize, not change, in general, but those who are bent on denying God's truth. There is just nothing there about thugs and tyrants and brutes, although they, too, are not following God's truth. The angels will beat to death those who deny God's truth (8:51); like Pharaoh's people, they denied God's truth and God took them to task for their sins (8:52); God will not change the blessings he has given to people unless they change their inner selves (8:53); like Pharao's people, who "treated as false the signs of their Lord", God destroyed them for their sins. (8:54). All of this leads up to 8:55 which says: The vilest creatures in the sight of God are those who are bent on denying the truth and therefore do not believe." So, it really is a matter of belief or non-belief that gets a human being classified as human or as the "vilest of creatures".
Therefore, in order to determine just who is a "vilest creature", we need to know who is considered to be bent on denying God's truth. In order to determine that, we need to know what is meant by "God's truth". Do you have any idea what the Koran means by "God's truth"? Can non-Moslems be followers of "God's truth"? Or, must the followers of 'God's truth" believe in Allah AND his apostle?

Montedoro:
"There is just nothing there about thugs and tyrants and brutes"

CF: Pharaoh's people, and references therein. Who was Pharaoh, and what did he and his people do? What does a reference to Pharaoh mean when reading the following:

"This is so because God does not change any favor He bestows upon people until they themselves change their own selves, and God is all-Seeing, all-Hearing." (8:53)

Think about that carefully, please, before responding.

"Do you have any idea what the Koran means by "God's truth"?"

Let me turn that question onto you. Why are you so sure, as a person who hasn't read the entirety of the Qu'ran, certainly not with an air to understand what it's actually saying, as centuries of exegis have unfolded, *you* know what the Qu'ran means by God's truth? Why would I believe you over scholars who've spent decades pouring over this book and thinking, clearly and deliberately, about what it means, with an honest desire to communicate that meaning to others? Do you think you're more qualified than they? More honest, skilled, or resourceful?

--A

To Abdiel:

Why do you persist in responding to my specific questions with a question instead of answering the question? Is it because you have no answer? If you have the expertise to know about 1400 years of Islamic exegisis, then tell me what the great Islamic scholars had to say about the definition of "God's truth". But, please, answer the question!!

Montedoro, you miss my point. All I'm trying to get to is to discover why you believe you're alone and unique in being able to discover meanings in the Qu'ran, especially when the meanings you're giving out are tired, old diatribes pre-selected for you by people who weren't really interested in understanding Qu'ran in the first place. You'd already decided before we even began discussing this that you knew what 8:55 meant--nothing I, nor 1400 years of Qu'ranic study, will change that. And that's pretty clear. See above: I'd asked you to think carefully about what a reference to Pharaoh means in the context of this passage in Qu'ran, and I don't think you've bothered to do that. That's fine--but don't pretend you're trying to learn something.

About "God's Truth:" God's Truth (or, more accurately, "sign" or "symbol"--the Arabic term in 8:54 is aayat-ar-rabbihiim," or "Signs of their Lord") is a sublimity. I'm not so vain to say I know what it means in a definitive sense that precludes other definitions, but I do know the ability to capture glimpses of it, or to strive to see it, isn't limited to people who call themselves "Muslim," nor is the tendency to deny it limited to people who call themselves "non-Muslim."

--A

To Abdiel:

So this is the result of 1400 years of Islamic exegisis, that God's truth is a "sublimity"??? "A sublimity" which even non-Moslems might catch "glimpses" of?? And each person can interpret that "sublimity" in his own way? That's it? Are you making a mockery of Islam, or what?