&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."

Sorry, Montedoro--not going to bite. You don't know anything worth teaching me, and you certainly aren't interested in learning, and frankly I'm more than a little bored with your tone, so I think we're done here.

--A

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."

How do you know this, Abdiel?

I guess you guys (Muslims) believe Islam was not spread by the sword then? All those historical accounts of bloodshed in India, ruined temples, massacres in Central Asia and even Arabia itself - all lies I guess? The dancing sufis must have done the job...

Like many civilisations and empires of its time, the Arabs and their Muslim successors engaged in spilling blood and enforcing their civilisation on others. Some of them even used scripture to justify this.

Just as today, people are using freedom and democracy to justify Abu Ghraib. And just as the Orthodox churches used scripture to justify the genocides in Bosnia and Kosovo.

People intent on spilling blood and grabbing power will use anything to justify their actions.

But given the hypothesis of Weiss that Islam was spread completely by the sword, I welcome his advice of which army brought Islam to Sri Lanka and Java.

Sombody justified Abu Ghraib in the name of democracy? I had no idea - even Don rumsfeld said it was wrong! He may have caused it but he did not justify it.

I did not mean that Islam spread by the sword alone. Many countries openly welcomed people - as probably it happened in India and Sri Lanka. But just as the conquistadors returned the favor by massacring the native Americans so also did the Islamic hordes that followed peaceful merchants destroy civilizations, especially in India where we can see thousands upon thousands of ruined staues everywhere which fell to the sword because they were 'idols'! And all this DID happen in the name of allah. Now, if you want to say 'so what - the Nazis killed jews!' you can go ahead and do that. But just be aware of the company you are keeoing!

But see, you are missing the point. What I am saying and Monte is making a much more researched argument about, is that the time for such rigidity is long gone - if ever there was a time for it!

While you all agree that rigid notions have no place in Islam, none of you is willing to say the koran is wrong in many ways. That is the problem. What comes in between us is that you and the suicide bombers agree on something the rest of the world vehemently rejects - absolutism.

That is what makes it is hard for the rest of us to accept you as non-violent. Not your beards or turbans or burkas. We live in countries where people pierce and tattoo themselves hideously and nobody give s a damn. How can anyone care if you wear a beard?

Why they do care if someone insists on wearing a burka into an airport is because under that burka may be a bomb! And not the 'sex-bomb' kind either!

Weiss, some Turkish Muslim invaders did try and destroy Hindu culture. DId they succeed? And how many Muslim rulers actively preserved Hindu culture?

If your goal is to prove that Muslims were somehow more evil than all the other empire-builders, you aren't doing a very good job.

As for keeping company with hitler, I leave such a dubious honour to people like Bal Thackeray and other Hindu extremists who regard Hitler as their hero.

I don't know who Bal Thacther is but I assume he is some kind of nazi admirer in India. If he has beheaded anybody in the name of his scripture he is surely with hitler.

For someone who knows more about India than I, it appears strange that you think it is was only some turkic invaders who tried to destroy Indian culture. From what I have seen, Islam tried very hard over many centuries to eradicate Hindus. I don't know why they did not succeed but it certainly does not seem to be because Muslims protected it. Makes no sense. When even in our relatively peaceful times many islamic guys think infidels need to be helped to 'revert', the islamic hordes that swept out of arabia must have been far more fanatical.

When I said you are with the absolutists I know you are not a terrorist. But what I am pointing out is the fact that 'moderates' in islam are very different from moderates in Christianity or Judaism. There are absolutist believers in both those religions but they are clearly demarcated from the mainstream. Muslims however are unable to make that delineation when it comes to beliefs and interpretation of koran with the extremists.

Weisskopf has hit the nail on the head with regard to the Koran. All the Moslem terrorists and their legions of supporters, including the religious scholars and clergy, quote the Koran to justify their actions. When the moderates get into Koran-quoting contests with the extremists, the moderates lose. That is why there is no significant moderate religious movement inside of Islam. There are only frustrated individuals who are appalled at what is being done in the name of their religion. Because they are missing the textual, theological support, they have been unable to change the course of Islam in the direction of moderation and tolerance. The universally accepted Islamic belief in the sacrosanct inerrancy of the Koran and the Hadith prevents the moderates from ever breaking out of their dilemma.

Monte, have you read the verse of the Koran that says that Muslims must stand up for justice even if it means opposing their own families, their wealth and themselves? What do you make of that verse?

And what about the hadith in which the Prophet talks about the Angel Gabriel lecturing him so much about the rights of neighbours that he expected Gabriel to deliver divine legislation that neighbours inherit from us?

And before you go any further, why should I accept you as an authority of Islamic sacred law? What qualifications do you have that make you superior to 14 centuries of juristic consensus?

Weiss castigates absolutists, yet is happy to issue blank cheque fatwas saying what all Muslims are "unable" to day as opposed to Jews and Christians. Also, Weiss, if you are really keen to learn about Indian history, go read some William Dalrymple.

Irfy,
Actually, yes, I have read the verse of the Koran that says that Muslims must stand up for justice even if it means opposing their families, etc. The meaning of this verse hinges on the definition of "justice". As I understand it, "justice" in the 1400 years of Islamic legal thinking means acting in accordance with the Koran and the Sunnah -- nothing more and nothing less. Would you accept that? If so, then we are right back where we started, namely, with the Koran and the Sunnah, both of which contain provisions which promote hostility towards non-Moslems and which contradict the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Why should you accept me as an authority on Islamic sacred law? You shouldn't because I am not. I merely cite passages from the Islamic sacred law and from the Islamic religious authorities whose Islamic credentials are unassailable. If you disagree with them, your argument is with them, not with me.

Let me give you just one little example. Here is a statement by Ibn Khaldun. Surely you would not say that he was ignorant of Islamic law. He said:
“in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.”
This is not my opinion. This is the opinion of one of the most respected Islamic scholars from the last 1400 years. I could give you many more such examples, none of which are my opinion and none of which depend on my credentials.

Irfy, Why should you accept me as an authority on Islamic sacred law? You shouldn't because I am not. I do not give my opinions; I cite Islamic sacred law and Islamic scholars whose Islamic credentials are unassailable. If you don't like what you hear, your argument is with them, not with me.

Let me give you just one small example. Ibn Khaldun, one of the greatest Islamic authorities of the last 1400 years said:
“in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.”
Did he misunderstand Islam?
What do you personally make of his statement? Do you agree with Ibn Khaldun? Do you disagree with him? If you disagree with him, is your authority on Islam greater than his?

I have been meaning to read Darlymple's book one of these days. Thanks for reminding me. However I am also smiling as I write this because I am already biased against a British man's version of Indian history! I read somewhere that most of the history of Africa remains untold because it was by oral tradition that history was passed on. The white people's obsession with the 'written word' being the supreme (another absolutism there for you!) has rendered all other accounts as 'unreliable'. Truth is, a history of a country or culture is always best expressed by the people who belong to the country or culture.

Any rendition of 'how it was to live under Slobodan Molosovic' by a guy named Koomar from Sri lanka, would be at best an educated guess! One has to live through it and be a victim of the crime for the record to be truly worth remembering. I would rather read Indian history written by Indians (I hear there are many schools of thought there too).

My point of absolutism should not be construed as an absolutism in itself. It may be clever to do that - 'all generalizations are wrong, including this one!' Very clever, but all it does is distract.

My point - more eloquently made by Montedero - is that by agreeing to the most harmful ideas in the Koran as being sacrosanct, all muslims are signing on to the actions that the few fundamentalists take in the defense of perceived or real threats to such ideas.

As I said, I have known a few people from other countries and religions - no scholars though - and they have denounced many parts of thier heritage or even scriptures as being either plain wrong or outdated. Caste in India for example. But it seems we cannot get muslims to do that. If they do, they will be called heretics and if they are well known possibly threatened with death.

The evangelists and mullahs have only one answer to anyone (who is not a Muslim or christian) who has the courage to say he or she does not agree to everything a religious document says - 'convert to Islam and all will be well!' or 'Convert to Christianity and all will be well!'

As you can see - all is not well with any religion when people insist on not making course corrections! Much to the chagrin of some backward Americans, the US constitution is not considered a sacred document and is constantly re-interpreted based on the times. As much as it is a fashion to call the US a stupid and impulsive country, we should all learn from that example.

Monte, please provide the full reference for Ibn Khaldun which you have quoted.

Please also provide me with a full list of your qualifications in the Islamic sacred law. These include your qualifications in interpreting verses of the Qur'an which deal with legal matters.

I note your interpretation of the verse. This is your interpretation. Even if I were to accept your interpretation, the fact is that there are plenty of ahadith which talk about the rights of neighbours. The Qur'an itself talks about how one is to treat one's non-Muslim family members. Further, God addresses the Prophet Muhammad about the extent of his gentleness toward those who reject his message.

Finally, are you suggesting that Ali bin Abi Talib was lying when he said that non-Muslims were our "brothers in humanity" and therefore had rights over us? Further, are upi suggesting the Prophet Muhammad contradicted the Qur'an when he spoke about the rights of neighbours, regardless of their faith?

If you regard Islam as just another name for al-Qaida ideology, that's your problem. I choose to rely on the consensus of 1,400 years of scholarship, not on the rants of some troll cutting and pasting off jihadwatch or some silly evangelical site.

Asking for Montedero repeatedly to ante up with paper qualifications before you take his questions seriously, is like an adult bullying a ten-year old who asks profound questions for which the grown-up has no answer!

Monte's questions are based on logic and commonsense. No other qualification is needed to question anything in the universe.

As I said earlier when a child asks why things always fall back to earth when she throws them up, and we cannot exactly explain the concept of gravity, we don't shout at her to say 'how dare you asks a question you are not qualified to ask!'

Weiss is clearly one of those people who takes medical or other specialist advice from any 10 year old who sprouts "common sense".

Good for you, Weiss. There is no common sense in accepting the arguments of someone expressing opinions which contradict 14 centuries of consensus among experts.

If you are prepared to throw out 14 centuries of learned consensus for the sake of something you think sounds like "common sense", be my guest.

So, who are you, Irfy, to keep talking about "14 centuries of learned consensus"? Do you have any idea what that consensus is and has been? In the case of violent offensive jihad against non-Moslems, the "14 centuries of learned consensus" says it is an integral part of Islam. For example, all four major legal schools of Islam confirm it:
Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared: "Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them."

continued:

Likewise, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of Osama bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists: "Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare). "
The Hanafi school sounds the same notes:
"It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do."

continued 3

And so does the Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058 ), who echoes Muhammad’s instructions to invite the unbelievers to accept Islam or fight them if they refuse: "The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached… "
The Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community" confirms this. This manual, ‘Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveller), after defining the “greater jihad” as “spiritual warfare against the lower self,” devotes eleven pages to the “lesser jihad.” It defines this jihad as “war against non-Muslims,” noting that the word itself “is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.” It further says: “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by a Jordanian jurist that corresponds to Muhammad’s instructions to call the unbelievers to Islam before fighting them: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invite them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) . . . while remaining in their ancestral religions.” Also, if there is no caliph, Muslims must still wage jihad.

Wow, so you know how to cut and paste. That's really excellent. "AnsweringIslam" is a really useful resource for those not wishing to use their intellect.

Mawardi's book was about Islamic government, not about relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. It was a text on how governments should manage their foreign policy. Many of his contemporaries and subsequent scholars disagreed with Mawardi's interpretations. Further, Mawardi was a product of his time when war was regarded as the right of any state. Perhaps you were unaware that it is only after the second world war that international law reached a state whereby warfare and conquest was no longer considered a right.

Have you considered what Mawardi's Christian contemporaries were writing at the time? Have you considered whether the Catholic Church set down any rules of war?

Your quote talks about the hanafi school, yet you haven't provided any reference. Further, which section of the hanafi school are you talking about? Are you referring to the Indian hanafis or the Turkic ones?

Have you ever read Umdat as-Salik yourself? You have cited the section that speaks of the prerequisites of jihad. Notice how it talks about the need for a caliph before jihad is declared in a military sense. The last sentence you have cut and paste from tries to circumvent this.

Whether you like it or not, for me as a Muslim living in a Western country, these rules of international warfare do not apply. Why? Because I do not come under the jurisdiction of such sharia rules. Because sharia itself limits the extent of its jurisdiction over me.

Now, Monte, are you going to continue lecturing me on what sharia says about my situation here in Sydney in 2007? Or are you going to go on cutting and pasting from evangelical websites out of context?

Speaking of the fiqh of minorities, have you read what Abdullah bin Bayyah writes about the issue of relations with non-Muslims? Or didn't Robert Spencer get that far?

Mate, quit while you are ahead. You are way out of your league. Sharia is the name of a legal tradition incorporating at least 4 or 5 legal systems. Quoting this person and that out of context and on completely unrelated topics provides lots of entertainment for me but doesn't do your argument much good.