37. Some religions out-narrate others.

Short but sweet.

My interpretation:

A few possibilities.

One interpretation could be that the Shaykh is discussing direct narrations of the founders of each religion. This brings out the point that Christianity is sprinkled with some sayings of Jesus (AS) in the New Testament, but in comparison to the narrations of Muhummad (S) present in Islam, it is minor. I’m unfamiliar with the amount of direct narration within Judaic tradition.

The other meaning could be in terms of narrations as stories or traditions to learn from. In this case, the number of traditions is equivilant to their place in history. For example, Jews accept the narration of the Old Testament alone, Christians accept the narrations of the Old Testament and New, Muslims accept (different versions of) those same stories, along with the tradition of the Prophet (S) and the Companions (Ra).

Another meaning could be the emphasis placed on accuracy and the sciences involved with narration, within each religion.

36. The ‘universal’ religion is not merely the religion that claims to be for all; it is the religion that claims that God has always been for all. There can be no Muslim ‘scandal of particularity’

Terms:

Scandal of particularity

Dr. David Adams defines it in his essay, “”The Anonymous God: American Civil Religion, the Scandal of Particularity, and the First Table of the Torah”

The scandal of particularity is a still broader notion, for it includes the understanding that God is at work is certain very specific times and places and ways to accomplish His will. The Christian faith is not a religion of spiritual truths, of moral or inner principles by which one ought to (or even may) live. It is the claim, radical in the ancient world and still more radical today, that God has reached into human history to do those things necessary to restore the relationship between Himself and us that our first ancestors shattered, and which still divide us from Him. This scandal of particularity is at the heart of the claims of the Bible to historicity, and make it fundamentally different from every other religion on earth.

What the Shaykh is highlighting with this contention is the ‘return to the truth’ aspect of the Islamic message, he then further contrasts it with the Christian ideology of ‘here is the truth’.

Islam is one of the few religions which understands that it’s understanding of God was the knowable ultimate truth from the creation of man. This is due to a few factors including the belief of a natural knowledge of God present within mankind, as well as the series of Prophet’s and Messengers sent throughout history.

Obviously, we Muslims believe that certain fundamentals of the Divine Law were different for each community (as each revelation was directed to that community), but we believe of the identity of God and fundamental trait of Oneness of God were present throughout all time, for all people to know.

In this way, Islam is a ‘universal religion’ that is described in the contention.

On the other hand, Christianity holds firm in the belief that the true nature of God (Trinity) was something inaccessible to man until the coming of Jesus (AS). Furthermore, according to Christians his ’sacrifice’ affected the nature of the relationship of God to mankind from that point forward. As a religious concept the ‘scandal of particularity’ keeps Christianity from legitimately existing amongst humanity before the coming of Jesus(AS).

Continuation of my Contentions Series.

Link to Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad’s Contentions part 1.

35. Liberal Protestantism: God is no longer the Father, but an occasional and indulgent Grandfather.

Liberal Protestantism - Wikipedia Definition

• “It maintains that, while God remains immutable, theists relationship with, and understanding of God change through history, and therefore that no theological truths are necessarily fixed, as each person’s experience can reveal a novel aspect of God. “

First, we need to establish what ‘Father’ is being discussed here. Everyone should be aware of traditional Christianity’s view on God as a Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In general I find that in my conversations with real Christians the ‘person’ they have in mind when they pray is “the Father” personality of the trinity.

The other thing to reflect on here are the different roles of a father and a grandfather. A father to a child can be a source of discipline and respect, as well as love and guidance. A grandfather is hardly ever a disciplinarian, in fact the “occasional and indulgent” understanding of a grandfather is one who provides gifts to the grandchildren when he sees them on the occasional holiday or vacation. Consider that type of relationship when thinking about this contention.

In my opinion what is being said here is that Liberal protestantism has added a layer of impersonalization in terms of a real relationship with God. This is taken to the point where God is not an authority in how to live ones life. For the liberal Christian, God, while providing certain spiritual comforts in times of need, is largely irrelevant to the day-in and day-out aspects of life.

Continuation of my Contentions Series.

Link to Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad’s Contentions part 1.

34. Judaism and Islam have resisted Christianity through eros and thanatos. Hence the magnitude of their victory.

Terms:
Eros - From the Freudian theory of the duality of human nature, Eros represents the drive towards attraction, reproduction, life, love and sexuality.

Thanatos - From the same theory, Tahanatos represents the drive towards aggression, repulsion , death.

Interpretation:

The first thing I noticed in this contention is the application of Freudian concepts of human nature applied to a religion. This is a very unique way to personify Christianity, and to categorize what we have seen as far as its nature.

This exposure of the duality of Christianity is really intresting, as Christianity definately has had its moments of Thanatos exposed through periods such as the Inquisition, the Crusades, and some might say the political-oriented evanglists of today. In the same way Muslims and Jews have also felt the Eros of Christianity in their preaching of Divine love, sacrifice, etc. Today, the emphasis of save-a-child type programs as well as humanitarian missions (Mother Teresa), also represent this attractive quality of Christiandom.

My opinion is that the Shaykh is raising the point that Muslims and Jews have both managed to survive the aggressive nature of Christianity and the subtle beckonings of the softer side throughout history, and it is quite significant that they have done so.

Here is a sub-contention, has Christianity already used up all of its ammunition?

Continuation of my Contentions Series.

Link to Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad’s Contentions part 1.

33. ‘Judaism is dead; but we are going to give it a magnificent funeral’. (Rabbi Zunz, fount of liberal Judaism.) Is Islam the reverse? And if so, what are the grounds for dialogue?

This contention reminds me of an event that occured when I was in my teens. I attended an interfaith dialogue with some members of the community, and as part of that we visited a Jewish center.

I got to speaking to the Rabbi there. He started his conversation with me by asking, “So… you believe in God?”, slightly incredulously. I followed up with, “Yes… why, don’t you?”

His startling answer was, “No!”

So here was a leader of a Jewish community who did not even believe in God. I was truly flabbergasted! As you may guess the conversation didn’t get much farther than that.

At that point I had not been truly exposed the various forms of Judaism including reform, liberal, orthodox. Although I knew such classifications existed, I had no idea that the differences ran so deep that one group did not even accept God’s existence.

Therefore, I find the comment from the Rabbi that Shaikh Abdal Hakim quotes to be quite spot-on, in the sense that Judaism has become much more of a racial identity than a faith for what seems to be a vocal majority of them.

Is Islam the reverse?

Judaism has thrived, in a worldly sense, when it has abandoned much of the particulars of its faith-based law. On the other hand, historically, Islam has seen great worldly success (as well as spiritual success), when it has remained true to the core principles of its traditional understanding. In this way, it seems to me that Islam is the reverse.

However, to truly determine the answer to that question we may want to look at groups within Islam that might mirror the relationship of some of the liberal groups to traditional/orthodox Judaism. The main question to ask is whether Islam could succumb to the same sort of liberalization that occurred within Judaism.

So far, the answer seems to be a resounding, “No!”. Movements such as “Progressive Islam” have not had much success within the Muslim community, though they have received much media attention.

Furthermore, Islam is protected inherently from becoming any sort of racial or cultural identity as it has already spread to a wide variety of humanity.

Grounds for dialogue:

My little attempt at dialogue, described above, failed miserably… But maybe Muslims can have a meaningful dialogue by appealing to the humanistic nature of reform/liberal Judaism, and also discussing the general issues that Islam has with humanism. It may help to discuss how Islam suggests a unified humanity and the problems that extreme tribalism (hence their emphasis on their racial identity) can create.

Continuation of my Contentions Series.

Link to Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad’s Contentions part 1.

32. Hagar is the matriarch of liberation because, unlike Sarah, she fends for herself.

Another Contention dealing with Hajr (RA), the hand maiden and child-bearer for Ibrahim (AS). First thing is first, I find the name Hagar so much of mangling of the actual name I am surprised the Shaikh used it. There is so much beauty in the name Hajr, and I feel none of it when saying the name Hagar.

It is most likely a weakness in myself, and an important example of why we need to filter the media to our kids. My problem is that I can’t help myself associating the name with an idiotic cartoon that I read when I was a child in the Sunday newspaper. It is quite insulting and therefore I don’t want to repeat the name lest you suffer the same fate as me and recall it at every mention.

I’m a bit curious as to the actual Hebrew / Aramaic pronunciation of the name, and I wonder how far back does this mangling of the name go. I have a few friends who are knowledgeable in that area so I will ask.

On to the contention:

I delved a bit deeper into the meaning of the word matriarch, as I know how it is commonly used but I wondered if there was more to it. And there is! Within Christian and Jewish traditional teachings, Sarah (RA) is titled as the ‘First Matriarch’.

What the Shaykh, in my opinion, is reminding us about is that Sarah (RA) was a matriarch in the old sense of the word. Meaning, that her honor and title really comes from her continuing relationship with Ibrahim (AS).

On the other hand, Allah’s honoring of Hajr(RA) really began with her separation from Ibrahim (AS). She was forced to fend for herself in the desert, running from mountain to mountain looking for support, until Zamzam was untapped by the miracle of Allah through Ishmael (AS).

She remained separate from Ibrahim (AS) from that point and although (according to Shaykh Hamza’s Sirat tapes) Ibrahim (AS) did visit and maintain a relationship with Ishmael (AS), for a large part Hajr was ‘on her own’ in the raising of her son and maintaining her own welfare (and she was greatly successful in that manner).

The story of Hajr (RA) is significant in this way, as a liberation (from man) story, especially for western women who might tend to look to the holy books as forms of ‘male oppression’. So while Sarah (RA) is the “First Matriarch”, which is quite an honor, Hajr is a matriarch which today’s women would find more appealing.

Continuation of my Contentions Series.

Link to Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad’s Contentions part 1.

31. Hagar, that ‘root out of a dry ground’, the most fertile woman in history.

Hagar (Hajr) is a reference to the hand-maiden of Abraham, and the mother of the Arab people.

Reference: Isaiah 53:2 “For he grew up before him as a tender root out of dry ground”

The verse referenced is from the old testament which is commonly used by Christians to indicate a reference to the Messiah, Jesus (Isa) (AS). Muslims see it as applying to the Prophet Muhummad (??? ???? ???? ? ???). Among the qualities of the person who is mentioned in the first verses of Isaiah are that “he” shall come from humble beginnings, and undergo tremendous suffering.

Certainly Christ-like.

The next few verses is what really does it for me, “Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days… (cut) 12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. ”

These verses speak of the turn-around, where the suffering will become success, and it seems quite worldly in nature (ie) “divide the spoil with the strong”. This is certainly much more of related to Muhummad’s (??? ???? ???? ? ???) reality.

Back to the contention: My interpretation here is simply that the Shaykh is reminding us the story of Hajr, and how she bore a son to a very old Abraham. If one were to think about it, you may also realize that it was with her and her son that the well of Zumzum sprouted in the middle of the desert, so her fertility was not only in child-bearing but in building the community of Arabs around this oasis in the desert.

She brought fertility to an man who was unable to concieve with his wife, and then she brought fertility to the desert sand. Truly a remarkable quality and in this way she is certainly the most fertile woman in history.