&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."

Irfy,

You made my point. Only now have muslims needed to live alongside the mini-skirted and free. In the days of the convivilia or Din-din, all people were pretty much the same as far as orthodoxy went. Maybe in India women were freer because they showed off thier breasts as the old statues show, and perhaps that is why the muslims never got along with Indians, but certainly in spain and turkey, christians were not much different from muslims. Only now have the differences become so large. Think calmly about what I am saying and try not to drop names to impress people.

Alabama? Never been there. Have you? Or is this from the movies that you have surmised that they must be burning crosses in Alabama even today.

Has anyone at this site ever heard of the Iraqi Islamic scholar Majid Khadduri? Anyone here have an opinion of Khadduri's reputation within the world of Islamic scholarship? Has anyone ever read his book: "War and Peace in the Law of Islam"? Any opinions about it?

One day, after 'trolling', as irfy puts it, all discussions on this website I clicked on that islamic matrimonial website banner out of curiosity.

Randomly pulling up women who wanted to marry, I came across this woman - I think this was in India - I am not sure. She said she had married a 'neo-muslim' -puzzled me for a bit until I read the next line. 'He reverted to his old religion in a few days and the marriage (she called it something else - I forgot) was annulled!'

Amazing! Such fanatical adherement to religion! She convinces some fool to convert to islam, the fool does that, then realizes what a stupid thing he did and goes back to whatever! And this idiot woman instead of letting things be, has to divorce him!

I don't know whehter to laugh at this or feel sorry for her because obviously she is hurting and humiliated. But this is what I mean when I say that moderates in other religions behave differently from moderate islams.

Weisskopf,

How do you know she is a "moderate"? Why are you surprised that she feels that her marriage is annulled? Explain to me how is it any worse when the rabbis in Israel decide which marriage is valid based on one's orthodoxy? Oh by the way, I don't believe her marriage should be annulled. But, I am not her and she is not me. And, I have seen plenty of "moderate" Catholics, Jews and Christians who think like that woman you mentioned.

I have been following this discussion and I have to say you and Montedoro have not shown iota of interest in dialog. All you have tried to do is show how bad Islam is. As Irfan has said in one of his comments, there are crazy people in all religion/faith/ideology. If you focus on those crazy people and try to judge an entire religion based on their behaviour, then all you are accomplish is more distrust between people. Unless your idea of dialog means calling muslim "retards".

BTW, you should really study the Indian history before making statements like "Maybe in India women were freer because they showed off thier breasts as the old statues show, and perhaps that is why the muslims never got along with Indians" - it really shows your ignorance on that matter.

Wow. Weiss condemns 1.2 billion people on the basis of a matrimonial advertisement on a website.

Meanwhile, Monte is still struggling to come to terms with the fact that the Islamic sacred law of warfare is not what defines relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in the 21st century.

The dogs bark. The caravan keeps moving on. Adios amigos.

You are right in that I don't know if this girl is an extremist or not. But if you give it some thought, you will see that it sounds like she is not an extremist by the fact that she fell in love with a guy who was not muslim in the first place...I would have expected a orthodox muslim to not go around with guys before marrying, and worse yet, with guys from some other religion?

The point of quoting that story about the girl is obviously lost on people here, but anyone else would see that it is absurd in the extreme and just goes to show how important religion seems to be for all muslims regardless of moderate or not as opposed to other religions where such behavior is common to the fringes - as you have correctly said in the Jews and Christians.

Here is a link to Muslim mindset as it exists in Pakistan.
http://www.siut.org/bioethics/newsletter.html
PDF version:
http://www.siut.org/bioethics/VOL3ISSUE1.pdf

Here's the link to Ardeshir cowasjee's column in the Dawn of July 1st where I found this paper.
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/cowas.htm

An excerpt from Cowasjee's column where he has excerpted the paper mentioned above:
“In Pakistan, this same dogma now provides the given major premise which cannot be challenged and cannot be understood differently from what it apparently meant to the early people, and conclusions can only be deduced from discovering analogous situations. My understanding of this is that apparently what was good in the 7th century remains good in the 21st century — the Muslim mind of Pakistan is unready to face the world as it is and unwilling to update itself.

“Under this paradigm, it is easy to see what happens to the whole structure of knowledge. In the field of morality nothing can be good or bad sui generic; it becomes good or bad by fiat, by declaring it to be good or bad as coming from God . . . . . . Law making also remains dependent on this logic; laws can only be deduced from what is given and nothing new can be entertained which is not already subsumed in the given premises, i.e. Quran and Sunnah. Both morality and law are thus seen to be based on an irrefutable given proposition, and rejection of this logic is seen as tantamount to heresy.

Naturally, this paradigm of knowledge was, and still is, very conducive to political authority. Thus the whole society was constructed on the ‘command-obedience’ framework and free play of mind was considered to be a disintegrating factor.”

Try explaining all this to the two clerical brothers of the Lal Masjid up in Islamabad, or to the girls swathed in black from the seminary next door and they will probably either issue a fatwa or launch a suicide bomber. The same applies to the thousands of madressahs of this land, to the illiterate, to the semi-educated and even to the educated whose minds remain firmly shut against logic, common sense and progress.

No, Monte is NOT "struggling to come to terms with the fact that the Islamic sacred law of warfare is not what defines relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in the 21st century. " It is the Muslim world that is struggling with that Islamic sacred law. Much of the Muslim world still follows the Islamic sacred law of warfare precisely because it is still held to be sacred. That has become a huge problem for the entire world.

As for this accusation that Monte and I have made no arguments, I think it is more a reflection of your inability to accept simple words as sincere opinions and arguments. It appears your minds are conditioned to accept only pompous sounding references(that agree with your opinion) as 'valid arguments'. I never quote papers or columns but it seems this is the only thing you guys respect. So be it.

But Monte has quoted more than what is needed here to satisfy your thirst for pomposity - I would think! One more thing I never understood Irfy - your constant harangue that Monte is a cut and paste artist, what else do you expect in an electronic bulletin board? Dancing cartoons to prove his point? Everyone who wants to quote has only one option - cut and paste! This is why I don't do that and instead speak my mind, but then that is not enough for you guys!

Weiss, the fact that a non-Muslim can write a column for the most influential newspaper in a nominally Islamic republic must tell you something.

Wisskopf,

Let me try for the last time - the examples I gave was not of the fringe of the Jews and Christians - they are very much mainstream. But, unlike you, I would not use that to say all Jews/Christians have such tendencies.

You have just proved again that all you want to do is vilify muslims/Islam. End of my comment on this thread.

Nobody is saying that "all Moslems" are this or "all Moslems" are that. Perhaps, the majority, even the vast majority, of Moslems do not agree with the traditional notion of jihad as expounded in the Koran, Hadith and Sharia. However, it makes as much sense to say that the majority of Moslems are peaceful as it does to tell a person with inoperable brain cancer that the majority of cells in his body are not cancerous. It is true, but irrelevant.

"Muslim mindset"? What is this? Eugenics week? Have we returned to 1930's Germany when people openly wrote and spoke of "Jewish mindset"? You poor guys really have lost the plot. Not enough sleep and too many KKK meetings, I guess.

And why wouldn't an observant Muslim girl date a Muslim guy? I've seen it happen plenty of times. Frequently it's the guy who meets the Muslim girl, takes a liking to her and pursues her. He then tries to please her by adopting her faith. She already somewhat fancies him, and his conversion facilitates the process. They then get married.

It's a very common story here in Australia. It probably also happens in the US, Canada and UK. But I guess we lack what you describe as "Muslim mindset".

Monte, the only cancer I see here is the cancer of hatred and prejudice that fills your brain.

The Prophet Muhammad instructed us to treat all people with respect. He led by example in this regard. His son-in-law and successor Ali told us that non-Muslims are our "brothers and sisters in humanity".

If you think I am ordered to hate and kill you, there's not much I can do to overcome that. If you are determined to approach Islam by behaving like a blind man describing an elephant by touch, I cannot help you. If you are determined to hate Muslims and their faith, what can I say?

We have a saying in Australia - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

No, the Prophet Mohammed did not instruct you to treat all people with respect. Here is just a small sampling of what he instructed Muslims to do:

Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (48:29).

It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer, accidents excepted. (4:92)

Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. (9:73 and 66:9)

This hardly sounds like respect to me.
In a posting above, you wrote:
"the Islamic sacred law of warfare is not what defines relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in the 21st century." So, even you agree that there is an Islamic sacred law of warfare which, at least until recently, defined relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. Surely this sacred law is not based on respect for non-Moslems.

Monte clearly isn't in the mood to hear reason. S/he/it is only prepared to cut and paste out of context. S/he/it is even prepared to join parts of separate verses from separate chapters together to manufacture a message that seats his/her/its agenda.

I guess all we can do is pray for Monte. Moderators, I suggest we end this thread of discussion.

Irfy has lost faith in his scripture and has started to appeal to the moderators?!

Please end this! He wails! So be it. Irfy, go to bed and sleep well.

I guess you did not read past the name of the author of the column I quoted which proves that Montedero's arguments are sound - only it is being written by a muslim expert and a scientist to boot! Well...I knew it and Mote also surely must have known it, that this is the best we can hope for. As they say 'you can wake up a man who is asleep but cannot wake a man who PRETENDS to be asleep!' I think all of you know that there is a lot of truth in what Monte is saying and I support - that there are many parts of the quran that are outright hateful and have no place in civilized society, never had. But you are too scared or indoctrinated to see what others can see. It will take centuries for muslims to get it. I will end with what I began with 'why can't muslims understand that it is just another religion like any other religion and take what is good and leave what is bad from it?!

'Walekum Islam' or whatever it is that you guys say before beating up someone on the head!

Weiss, let's keep going.

The Prophet Muhammad spoke about how the Angel Gabriel came to him and lectured him profusely on the rights of neighbours. So profusely that he expected the Angel would reveal to him that neighbours are to be written in one's will.

This narration doesn't specify whether the neighbours involved are Muslim or non-Muslim. No jurist has specified that the narration only refers to Muslim neighbours.

So if I have a non-Muslim neighbour, I must treat that neighbour well. How does that sit with your "Protocols of the Learned Mullahs of Islam" conspiracy thesis that Muslims go around bashing every non-Muslim they can find on the head?

Further, the Prophet Muhammad said: You are not a true believer if you go to sleep on a full stomach while your neighbour hasn't had a full meal". Now how do we comply with this? Surely we have to have good and sound relations with our neighbours? Or am I to implement this by bashing my neighbour on the head and hoping he'll disclose whether his appetite has been satiated?

Irfy,

Someday, start telling me what YOU think. Stop with this mohammed said this and that. The heart of our disagreement is not whether Islam is good or bad. It is whether muslims can think for themselves.

To say that they can think but they voluntarily restrict themselves to 'the book' is no different than the justification of the followers any mind-numbing 20th century ideology; like Mao's Little Red Book or Turkmenbashi's Ruhnama. Indeed, those two books may be far stupider than the one you read but the quality of blind faith is as harmful whether it is invested in Ruhnama or Koran or the Bible.

Thinking over my own remark - I am being unfair to the readers of Mao and Turkmenbashi. At least those people were threatened with death if they did not agree to the ideology, what threats are there against muslims that they cannot bring themselves to deviate an inch from 'the word' as it was laid out a thousand years ago in the desert! None. Other than voluntarily 'turning off' the 'ijthidida' and 'turning on' the 'jihad'.

Or am I fooling myself into thinking that just because Muslims are in the US (or in Australia) they are 'free'? Maybe, the truth is that no muslim is really free to say what he thinks (or should I be politically correct like Irfy and say 'he/she/it' thinks?)